Opinion ID: 1199062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Felony Child Endangerment as a Necessarily Included Offense of Torture-murder

Text: Count 1 of the information charged defendant with the unlawful killing of James with malice aforethought on or about December 23, 1983. That count also alleged the special circumstance that the murder was committed with the intent to kill and that it involved the infliction of torture. Count 3 charged that defendant did wilfully and under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death cause, permit, and inflict unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering upon James.... (23) Defendant argues that under the language of the accusatory pleading all of the elements of felony child endangerment alleged in count 3 are encompassed by the elements of first degree torture-murder alleged in count 1, and that the conviction on the child-endangerment count must be reversed because it is a necessarily included offense of torture murder. Not so. When, as here, the accusatory pleading describes an offense in the statutory language, an offense is a necessarily included offense when the greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense. ( People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 99 [192 Cal. Rptr. 748, 665 P.2d 520].) Because the victims of torture murder can be adults, as well as children, it follows that torture murder does not necessarily include child endangerment. (See In re Hess (1955) 45 Cal.2d 171, 174 [288 P.2d 5] [forcible rape can be committed without contributing to the delinquency of a minor].)