People v. Gutierrez

Decision Date30 August 1985
Citation217 Cal.Rptr. 616,171 Cal.App.3d 944
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Vincent GUTIERREZ, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. B005690.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Cullather, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Alison Braun, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

CANTER, Associate Justice. *

Defendant, Manuel Vincent Gutierrez, was convicted by a jury of wilful and unlawful infliction of corporal injury upon his wife resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen.Code, § 273.5). 1 He waived his right to jury trial as to alleged prior convictions, challenging their constitutionality. After trial by the court, the priors were found to be true and constitutionally valid. He was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of four years, and his sentence was enhanced one year each as to the first and second alleged priors. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Defendant and his wife had been married for over 10 years. They had two children. About three weeks prior to the incident, defendant moved out of their apartment. He returned early one morning at approximately 3 a.m., and sought entry. The wife eventually gathered up the children and attempted to flee. Defendant stopped them before they reached the car, and they went back into the house. A scuffle ensued. Defendant pushed his wife. The wife hit defendant with a frying pan. He knocked her down and banged her head on the floor. He grabbed her by the neck and squeezed, leaving a red mark on her throat. He then knocked her down again and dragged her to the front porch by her hair. She lost quite a bit of hair, and her legs were lacerated when defendant dragged

her through glass he had earlier broken in his attempt to gain entry.

CONTENTIONS

On appeal defendant contends: (1) Section 273.5 denies equal protection of the law by creating a special class of individuals upon whom it operates; (2) That cohabitation was a necessary element of the offense; (3) CALJIC No. 9.35 incorrectly defines the meaning of "traumatic condition;" and (4) His sentence was improperly enhanced with an invalid prior felony conviction stemming from a 1969 plea.

DISCUSSION
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 273.5

At the close of the prosecution's case in chief, defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to section 1118.1, contending, as he does on appeal, that section 273.5 denies him equal protection of the law. He asserts that section 273.5 favors divorced spouses and separated partners of meretricious relationships by excluding them from its operation. Persons in those categories who commit violence against each other cannot be found guilty of violating this section. Only married or married but separated couples or partners in meretricious relationships who are presently cohabitating can fall within the proscription of section 273.5.

The constitutional pedigree of section 273.5 has already been established.

First enacted in 1945 as section 273d, the statute prohibited a husband from inflicting upon his wife corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition and prohibited any person from doing the same to any child. 2

In 1977 the Legislature separated the subject matters of child abuse and wife beating found in the original section 273d. The child abuse prohibition was retained in exact language with the same section number. The wife-beating provisions were renumbered as section 273.5 and underwent a transformation which prohibited either spouse from inflicting corporal punishment resulting in a traumatic condition on the other. In addition, cohabitating partners of the opposite sex were added as a category of protected individuals.

An equal protection challenge had been made to section 273d prior to the revision. In People v. Cameron (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 786, 126 Cal.Rptr. 44, the court upheld the predecessor statute, but suggested that the Legislature consider broadening the statute by making it applicable to both spouses. (Id., at p. 797, 126 Cal.Rptr. 44.)

Perhaps in response to this, and to the growing recognition of the fact that "[d]uring the past 15 years, there has been a substantial increase in the number of couples living together without marrying ..." (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 665, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106), the Legislature amended the statute to its present form prohibiting violence against spouses, and sweeping into its protection cohabiting members of the opposite sex.

This classification by intimacy of relationship is a valid exercise of the Legislature's judgment. As the court observed in People v. Cameron, supra, 53 Cal.App.3d at p. 792, 126 Cal.Rptr. 44: "It is indisputable that the overwhelming number of encounters between husbands and wives take place in the home, usually late at night and after the consumption of alcohol by one or both of the parties.... Society places strong restraints upon unchivalrous conduct by a male toward the female in a social setting. But such chivalry appears to lose its efficacy at the threshold ... quite predictable is the outcome, that the husband's fists are more damaging than the wife's tongue, however sharp."

The occasion of a separation among spouses ofttimes heightens the potential for angry confrontation, as apparently occurred in this case. The need for special protection is well documented in the literature, both for spouses 3 and for children. 4 Divorced spouses and separated partners of meretricious relationships are simply not in the constant proximity to each other as are married spouses and cohabiting couples.

" '[T]he Equal Protection clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all.' " (People v. Cameron, supra, 53 Cal.App.3d at p. 794, 126 Cal.Rptr. 44, quoting Dandridge v. Williams (1970) 397 U.S. 471, 486-487, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1162-1163, 25 L.Ed.2d 491.) Our Supreme Court has acted similarly: "The Legislature is not bound, in order to adopt a constitutionally valid statute, to extend it to all cases which might possibly be reached, but is free to recognize degrees of harm and to confine its regulation to those classes of cases in which the need is deemed to be the most evident." (Board of Education v. Watson (1966) 63 Cal.2d 829, 833, 48 Cal.Rptr. 481, 409 P.2d 481.)

Whether married or not, cohabiting partners are in the high risk category for domestic violence. The police officer responding to the scene of a domestic disturbance may be unable to effect an arrest and restore order were it not for this section. To make an arrest without a warrant the crime must either be committed in the presence of the officer if a misdemeanor, or the officer must have reasonable cause for believing a felony has been committed. ( § 836.) Domestic violence "is usually accomplished with fists and kicking ... The severity of the injuries are therefore not always capable of instant diagnosis. Internal injuries and even broken limbs may not immediately evidence themselves." (People v. Cameron, supra, 53 Cal.App.3d at p. 793, 126 Cal.Rptr. 44.) Rarely, if ever, will the violence occur in the officer's presence, and he cannot arrest for a felony battery unless the victim suffered serious bodily injury. 5 "But an officer given the alternative of arresting for a felony under the provisions of section 273d [now 273.5] may do so when he observes traumatic injury." (Ibid.)

The rationale set forth in Cameron for upholding the constitutionality of the predecessor statute, applies equally to the statute in its present form. Cameron was recently cited with approval by our Supreme Court when dealing with the child abuse statute. (People v. Smith (1984) 35 Cal.3d 798, 810, 201 Cal.Rptr. 311, 678 P.2d 886.)

COHABITATION

Defendant also contends that cohabitation is a necessary element of the offense, otherwise the statute discriminates against married but separated couples.

The Legislature provided protection to spouses--whether or not cohabiting--and to cohabiting non-spouses, in recognition of the special circumstances into which persons in each of these classes find themselves as regards domestic violence. Because marriage provides a significant and special relationship, the temporary separation from which may not decrease the potential for violence, the Legislature was free to grant protection to that relationship. The Legislature was similarly free to add to the protected list the less committed The fact the Legislature made these constitutionally valid classifications does not elevate any particular aspect of either category, such as cohabitation, into a necessary element of the offense in all cases. Cohabitation defines one of the protected classes, that is, unmarried cohabitors; it is not a constituent part of the prohibited activity. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to an instruction that required the jury to find cohabitation existed as a condition of rendering a verdict against him.

but still significantly volatile cohabiting relationship, without adding in all other variations on those themes.

Appellant asserts he was entitled to such an instruction on his theory of the case, no matter how weak, citing People v. Carmen (1951) 36 Cal.2d 768, 773, 228 P.2d 281. That case requires the trial court to instruct the jury " '... upon every material question upon which there is any evidence deserving of any consideration whatever....' " (Ibid., quoting People v. Burns (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 867, 871, 200 P.2d 134.) However, a criminal defendant is not entitled to instructions on theories for which no evidence has been adduced, nor on legal theories which are erroneous. (People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 401, 85 Cal.Rptr. 409, 466 P.2d 961.) Here, appellant's theory that cohabitation is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • People v. Wilkins
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Marzo 1993
    ...with greater protection by requiring less harm to be inflicted before the offense is committed." (People v. Gutierrez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 944, 952, 217 Cal.Rptr. 616.) The information imparted to the officers and their observations were sufficient to establish probable cause to believe de......
  • Hernandez v. City of Napa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 21 Marzo 2011
    ...arresting for a felony under the provisions of section 273[.5] may do so when he observes traumatic injury.” People v. Gutierrez, 171 Cal.App.3d 944, 950, 217 Cal.Rptr. 616 (1985). Traumatic injury for purposes of § 273.5 has been defined as “a wound or other abnormal bodily condition resul......
  • People v. Serrano
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Abril 2022
    ...assault is a lesser included offense of infliction of corporal injury result in a traumatic condition. ( People v. Gutierrez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 944, 952, 217 Cal.Rptr. 616 ; People v. Van Os (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 204, 206, 214 P.2d 554.)B. AnalysisThe People acknowledge that simple assaul......
  • People v. Kinsey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 13 Diciembre 1995
    ...with greater protection by requiring less harm to be inflicted before the offense is committed." (People v. Gutierrez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 944, 952, 217 Cal.Rptr. 616.) A "traumatic condition" is "a wound or external or internal injury, whether of a minor or serious nature, caused by a phy......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT