In re Shannon T.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2006
• Docket Number: No. C052035.,C052035.
• Citation: 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 564,144 Cal.App.4th 618
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re SHANNON T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shannon T., Defendant and Appellant.

50 Cal.Rptr.3d 564

144 Cal.App.4th 618

In re SHANNON T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shannon T., Defendant and Appellant.

No. C052035.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

November 1, 2006.

Tara K. Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Malibu, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R., Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross and Robert K. Gezi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SCOTLAND, P.J.

In a vernacular at odds with his suggestion that he was just "play[ing] around," 14-year-old Shannon T. (the minor) went up to a 16-year-old girl at school and said, "Get off the phone. You're my `ho.'" The girl, who was talking on her cell phone, replied "whatever" and began to walk to class. With a misguided sense of who was being offensive, the minor pursued the girl and complained, "Don't talk to me like that." He then slapped her face, grabbed her arm, and pinched her breast, causing her to cry. The pinch resulted in a one-inch-by-one-half-inch purple bruise with red dots "right above her left nipple."

Finding that the minor committed sexual battery and battery on school property, the juvenile court placed the minor on probation under terms that limited his freedom.

On appeal, the minor notes that the victim acknowledged she and the minor had been friends and, in the past, had engaged in "playful hitting" of each other. Thus, he argues, the sexual battery finding must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence that he touched the victim on this occasion "for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse," which is an element of the crime of sexual battery. (Pen.Code, § 243.4, subd. (e); further section references are to the Penal Code.) We disagree.

As we will explain, the sexual battery statute's use of the phrase touching "for the specific purpose of ... sexual abuse" encompasses a purpose of insulting, humiliating, intimidating, or physically harming a person sexually by touching an "intimate part" of the person, i.e., "the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, and the breast of a female." (§ 243.4, subd. (g)(1).) Because there is substantial evidence that the minor acted with the requisite purpose, we shall affirm the juvenile court's finding.

DISCUSSION

Section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1) states: "Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery ...." As used in this provision, the word "touches" means "physical contact with another person, whether accomplished directly, through the clothing of the person committing the offense, or through the clothing of the victim." (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(2).) An "intimate part" includes "the breast of a female." (§ 243.4, subd. (g)(1).)

Neither the statute nor any published case provides a definition of "sexual abuse" as used in section 243.4. In construing that term, we apply fundamental rules of statutory interpretation. "Our role as an appellate court is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute." (People v. Catelli (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1448, 278 Cal. Rptr. 452; accord, People v. Cole (2006) 38 Cal.4th 964, 974, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 261, 135 P.3d 669.) We do so by looking to the language of the statute and by giving its words "their usual, ordinary, and common sense meaning" in light of the evident purpose for which the statute was adopted. (In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 155, 151 Cal.Rptr. 649, 588 P.2d 789; accord, People v. Cole, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 975, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 261,135 P.3d 669.)

The "abuse" of a person commonly means the mistreatment of the person "in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way." (Random House Diet, of the English Language (2d ed.1987) p. 9.) Abuse is not limited to causing physical injury to the person; it includes causing emotional harm by the use of offensive conduct. (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Diet. (11th ed.2006) p. 6; Webster's 3d New Internat. Diet. (1986) p. 8; American Heritage Diet. (2d college ed.1985) p. 70; Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Diet. (1974) p. 7.) Thus, for example, conduct intended to insult or humiliate a person is the "abuse" of that person. (E.g., American Heritage Diet., supra, at p. 70.) So, too, is conduct for the purpose of intimidating the person.

Accordingly, and consistent with the readily apparent purpose of section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1), "sexual abuse" includes the touching of a woman's breast, without consent, for the purpose of insulting, humiliating, or intimidating the woman, even if the touching does not result in actual physical injury.¹

Here, the minor's purpose in pinching the victim's breast can be inferred from the act itself together with its surrounding circumstances. (People v. Smith (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1469, 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 75.)

It is true the victim testified on cross-examination that she and the minor had been friends and that they had engaged in "playful hitting" and "hugging" at the beginning of the school year. However, the evidence belies the minor's suggestion he was only "play[ing] around" when he pinched the victim's breast. Moments before, the minor called the victim his "`ho'" and demanded that she end the call she was making on her cell phone. When she replied "whatever" and walked away, the minor chastised her by saying, "Don't talk to me like that," and slapped her in the face. He then grabbed her arm and pinched her breast. The victim began crying, was "scared that [the minor] would do something else," and reported the incident to school security. The security official, a woman, testified the victim was "hysterical" and her face "was all red" when she made the report. The next day, the victim showed a female counselor that the victim had suffered a significant bruise "right above her left nipple."

These circumstances support a conclusion that the minor pinched the girl's breast for the specific purpose of insulting, humiliating, intimidating, and even physically hurting her. The minor was not a prepubescent boy who, acting in a fit of pique, grabbed the nearest available body part of a physically immature girl who refused to acquiesce in childish...