Opinion
F062384
02-16-2012
In re VICTOR S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR S., Defendant and Appellant.
Grace Lidia Suarez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ600089-1)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David C. Kalemkarian, Judge.
Grace Lidia Suarez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that 16-year-old Victor S. committed misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, § 242.) The court declared him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and placed him on the electronic monitoring program under the supervision of the probation department and subject to specific terms and conditions. On appeal, Victor contends there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he battered his father. Because his father's use of a belt constituted unreasonable discipline, he had a right to defend himself. We will affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
--------
FACTS
On January 27, 2011, Victor's mother told his father, Antonio, that Victor had been getting to school late. Antonio and Victor argued about the situation. Antonio told Victor he was tired of "all these problems." He wanted Victor to pay attention and to understand what he was telling him. He was tired of Victor telling him "it was fine" and "he was going to try." Antonio removed his belt, doubled it over and attempted to hit Victor's buttocks over his clothing. The belt landed on Victor's left thigh and stung. In response, Victor hit his father in the right temple area of his face, telling him not to hit him because he was his son. Antonio responded, "that's why I want you to understand what I'm telling you. I want you to be somebody in life." Antonio swung the belt at Victor's buttocks again, this time striking near Victor's waist area. Victor swung at his father's face again with his closed fist and grazed him. Antonio's third swing at Victor with the belt missed. Victor left the house and did not return that night. Antonio suffered a black eye as a result of Victor's blows.
At the hearing, Antonio testified this was the first time he had hit Victor with a belt. In hindsight, he had no reason to use a belt that day. He hit Victor to punish him because he was upset.
Defense Evidence
Victor testified he had an argument with his father about getting to class late and joining the Marines. He told his father he would try not to be tardy and his father hit him just as the argument was over. He hit his father because his father had hit him first. Upon further questioning, he said he thought his father was going to continue hitting him with the belt because "this [wasn't] the first time." His father had hit him with a belt when he was a "little kid." He admitted he hit his father twice with a closed fist.
The court found the allegation of battery true, reasoning that a parent has a right to reasonably discipline his child. The discipline in this case was neither unjustified nor excessive and, therefore, was reasonable. The court concluded that striking a parent in response to reasonable discipline cannot be justified as self-defense.
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence of Battery
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile proceeding, the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Christopher F. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 462, 471 and fn. 6.)
A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. (§ 242.) A person may, in appropriate circumstances, use reasonable force to resist a battery. (People v. Myers (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 328, 330.)
Victor asserts, if the victim in this case had not been his father, there is little question that he would have had the right to defend himself and the People would have failed to carry their burden of proof. He concedes, however, a parent may use reasonable force to discipline a child, including corporal punishment. He argues the corporal punishment in this case was unreasonable because it was not warranted by the circumstances, it was "punishment for its own sake," and it was excessive. The People respond that there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that Antonio's conduct was justified.
A parent has a right to reasonably discipline a child and may administer reasonable punishment, including corporal punishment, without being liable for a battery. (People v. Whitehurst (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050.) A parent's right to discipline is not absolute; a parent who willfully inflicts unjustifiable punishment may be subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution. (Ibid.) Reasonable punishment does not include the willful infliction of personal injuries. (Emery v. Emery (1955) 45 Cal.2d 421, 430; People v. Checketts (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1192 [inflicting punishment with an intent to endanger the health and safety of the child or to achieve an unlawful purpose, exceeds the scope of parental authority].) Whether the degree and method of punishment were justified are questions for the trier of fact. (People v. Stewart (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 88, 91.)
We find the evidence sufficient. Antonio's act of striking Victor with a belt in the area of his buttocks over his clothing did not constitute unreasonable punishment. Antonio struck Victor because he was angry with Victor's response. A reasonable inference from Antonio's testimony was that Victor was again minimizing the problem: "it was fine," and was not committing to remedy the situation: he would "try" to get to school on time. Antonio struck Victor in an attempt to get his attention and to emphasize what he was telling him. Regardless of whether we agree with the wisdom of using a belt to discipline a 16-year-old, the blows in this case did not involve the willful infliction of physical injury and were not administered for an unlawful purpose. Corporal punishment may lawfully be used to discipline a child, and 16-year-old Victor was a child under the law. Further, there was no evidence that the blows, which "stung," injured or even left any mark on Victor's skin.
Because Antonio had a right to use reasonable corporal punishment to discipline Victor, Victor had no right to physically resist such punishment. When he struck his father's face with his fist, he committed a battery. Thus, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that Victor committed battery.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.