Opinion
G037753
6-14-2007
In re ALFREDO V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFREDO V., Defendant and Appellant.
Stehphen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne McGinnis and Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
After a jurisdictional hearing, minor Alfredo V., was declared a ward, placed on probation, and ordered to a juvenile facility for 90 days. He was no stranger to the juvenile court: between 2002 and 2006, at least six petitions and subsequent petitions were filed against him. On the day in question, a month or so after his previously imposed wardship was terminated, minor engaged in a physical altercation with his father and his mother, the police were called, and thereafter a petition was filed charging him with two counts of assault (Pen. Code, § 240) and two counts of battery (Pen. Code, § 242). These charges were found to be true. The petitions remaining charge for possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364) was also found to be true but is not the subject of this appeal.
It is undisputed that the fracas began when minors father pushed him in the course of an argument, whereupon minor punched his father in the nose. When his mother stepped between them and grabbed minors arm, he pushed her away and she fell to the ground injuring her elbow. The only issue in this appeal is whether or not the trial court knew that under appropriate circumstances self-defense may be a defense even when an altercation involves parents and minor children.
As minor recognizes, citing Emery v. Emery (1955) 45 Cal.2d 421, 429-430, People v. Stewart (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 88, 91, and People v. Curtiss (1931) 116 Cal.App.Supp. 771, 775, "[a] parent has a right to reasonably discipline by punishing a child and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for a battery. . . . This includes the right to inflict reasonable corporal punishment." He also notes that "a parent who willfully inflicts unjustifiable punishment is not immune from either civil liability or criminal prosecution." (Citing People v. Stewart, supra, 188 Cal.App.2d at p. 91 and People v. Curtiss, supra, 116 Cal.App.Supp. at p. 777.)
Here is what the court stated, which minor argues demonstrates a misunderstanding of the law of self-defense: "One would think listening to defense counsel that the minors parents were on trial. Whether the court believes or not the fathers testimony . . . that he gave an open handed push of his son. That would, in this courts . . . mind[,] be effective parental discipline. That doesnt even mean force of the type constituting a battery. It is certainly not force that a child living under a parents roof should be fighting a parent back. It doesnt even rise to the level of defending oneself by the minor."
The courts statement that the push administered by father was "effective parental discipline" equates with a finding that the amount of force used by father was justifiable, a finding supported by substantial evidence. Implicit in this is that the court knew the law but was not persuaded that self-defense was available under the facts of this case. To the extent the altercation also involved minors mother, no argument is made that minor here also was merely defending himself.
The judgment is affirmed.
We Concur:
OLEARY, J.
IKOLA, J.