Court Opinion

ID: 9789038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:26:17.739919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:18.988306
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion under compulsion of this court’s holding in People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 114, 29 P.3d 197] (Williams).
In Williams, a majority of this court defined the mental state of the crime of assault (Pen. Code, § 240) as requiring only that the defendant have “actual knowledge of the facts sufficient to establish that the defendant’s act by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another” (Williams, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 782), and as not requiring “a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur” (id. at p. 790). I disagreed, concluding that “assault requires proof of an intent to injure another.” (Id. at p. 791 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.); see also People v. *787Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 225-228 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 865 P.2d 704] (cone. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
Here, the majority applies the definition of the term “assault” that it announced in Williams, supra, 26 Cal.4th 779, to Penal Code section 273ab, which provides: “Any person who, having the care or custody of a child who is under eight years of age, assaults the child by means of force that to a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the child’s death, shall be punished by imprisonment... for 25 years to life.” (Italics added.) Based on that definition, the majority here affirms defendant’s conviction for violation of Penal Code section 273ab.
It is reasonable to infer that the Legislature intended that the term “assault,” as used in Penal Code section 273ab, be defined synonymously with its definition in Penal Code section 240, which describes the crime of assault. Because the definition of the requisite mental state for the crime of assault that the majority announced in Williams, supra, 26 Cal.4th 779, now has the force of precedent, it applies here. Applying that definition to the facts of this case, I agree with the majority that substantial evidence supports defendant’s conviction for violating Penal Code section 273ab, and I therefore join the majority in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which found insufficient evidence to support that conviction.