Prosecuting elder abuse: Setting the gold standard in the golden state

Hastings Law Journal

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 431-452

  Meirson, Arthur ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61349090592     PISSN: 00178322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (245)

1. Tracy Breton, Elderly Aunt Gets Justice; Niece Faces Jail for Attack, PROVIDENCE SUNDAY J., Apr. 9, 2006, at A.01, available at http://www.projo.com/extra/2007/elderabuse/content/20060409. html.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(a)-(k) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
7. Id. § 368(b)(1), (c) (emphasis added). The difference between these subsections stems from the condition under which the abuse occurs: section 368(b)(1) (felony elder abuse) applies "under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death," while section 368(c) (misdemeanor elder abuse) applies "under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death."
8. Id. (emphasis added).
9. Id. Courts have found that the California elder abuse law is intentionally vague in order to protect vulnerable adults, and that the vagueness is constitutional even if it limits physicians' practice.
10. See infra notes 104-11 and accompanying text. Additionally, courts have found that the use of "care" in this statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
11. See infra note 101 and accompanying text.
12. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(a).
13. WAN HE ET AL., U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PUBL'N NO. P23-209, 65+ IN THE UNITED STATES: 2005, at i (2005), available at http://www.census.gov/ prod/2006pubs/p23-209.pdf.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 6;
17. see also Seymour Moskowitz, Golden Age in the Golden State: Contemporary Legal Developments in Elder Abuse and Neglect, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 589, 593 (2003) (projecting that the elderly population of the United States will reach "17.7% by 2020 and almost [22%] by 2050").
18. Moskowitz, supra note 13, at 601.
19. Id.;
20. see also CHAIRMAN OF H. SUBCOMM. ON HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE OF THE H. SELECT COMM. ON AGING, IOIST CONG., ELDER ABUSE: A DECADE OF SHAME AND INACTION, at xi (Comm. Print 1990) [hereinafter DECADE OF SHAME].
21. Letter from State of California, Office of the Attorney General to Fellow Californians, in CAL. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO PREVENTING AND REPORTING ELDER ABUSE (2002), available at http://ag.ca.gov/ bmfea/pdfs/citizens-guide.pdf.
22. Id. at 2.
23. CHAIRMAN OF THE H. SUBCOMM. ON HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE OF THE SELECT COMM. ON AGING, 102D CONG., IST SESS. REPORT ON PROTECTING AMERICA'S ABUSED ELDERLY: THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION 2 (Comm. Print 1991) [hereinafter NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION].
24. Robert N. Butler, Foreword to ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT OF THE ELDERLY: CAUSES AND INTERVENTIONS, at xi (Jordan I. Kosberg ed., 1983).
25. Moskowitz, supra note 13, at 604
26. (citing Mark S. Lachs et al., The Mortality of Elder Mistreatment, 280 JAMA 428, 429 (1998)).
27. See DECADE OF SHAME, supra note 15, at xiii;
28. cf. Society's Secret Shame: Elder Abuse and Family Violence: Hearing Before S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, 104th Cong. 2 (1995)
29. (opening statement of Sen. William S. Cohen, Chairman, Senate Spec. Comm. on Aging) (estimating rates of reported abuse as low as one in fourteen, suggesting that nearly 93% of elder abuse goes unreported).
30. John B. Breaux & Orrin G. Hatch, Confronting Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation: The Need for Elder Justice Legislation, 11 ELDER L.J. 207, 208 (2003). In 2003, Senator Breaux was the ranking member of the U.S. Special Committee on Aging, and Senator Hatch was a member of that committee as well as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
31. PAMELA B. TEASTER, NAT'L CTR. ON ELDER ABUSE, A RESPONSE TO THE ABUSE OF VULNERABLE ADULTS: THE 2000 SURVEY OF STATE ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES 34 (2000), available at http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/Main-Site/pdf/research/ apsreport030703.pdf;
32. cf. NATIONAL ELDER ABUSE INCIDENCE STUDY 7 (1998), available at http://www.aoa.dhhs.gov/eldfam/Elder-Rights/ Elder-Abuse/AbuseReport-Full.pdf (utilizing different methodology, finding that family members accounted for 89.7% of perpetrators of elder abuse).
33. Moskowitz, supra note 13, at 632.
34. Id.
35. Seymour Moskowitz, Saving Granny from the Wolf: Elder Abuse and Neglect- The Legal Framework, 31 CONN. L. REV. 77, 82 (1998)
36. (citing C Henry Kempe et al., The Battered Child Syndrome, 181 JAMA 17, 17 (1962)).
37. Kathryn D. Katz, Elder Abuse, 18 J. FAM. L. 695, 704 (1980) (citations omitted).
38. Moskowitz, supra note 26.
39. See generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5107, 5119 (2006) (codifying the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act).
40. Moskowitz, supra note 26, at 83.
41. See DECADE OF SHAME, supra note 15, at ix-x.
42. Moskowitz, supra note 26, at 83;
43. see also G.R. Burston, Letter to the Editor, Granny-Battering, 1975 BRIT. MED. J. 592, 592.
44. MARY JOY QUINN, GUARDIANSHIPS OF ADULTS: ACHIEVING JUSTICE, AUTONOMY, AND SAFETY 14 (2005).
45. See, e.g., CTR. ON AGING, U. OF MD., THE BATTERED ELDER SYNDROME: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY 1-3 (Marilyn R. Block & Jan D. Sinnott eds., 1979) (responding to the Administration on Aging's call for investigation into "the incidence of maltreatment of elderly persons").
46. H. SELECT COMM. ON AGING, 97TH CONG., ELDER ABUSE: AN EXAMINATION OF A HIDDEN PROBLEM (Comm. Print 1981) [hereinafter HIDDEN PROBLEM].
47. Id. at xiii-xvii.
48. Id. at xiv-xv.
49. Moskowitz, supra note 26, at 83-84.
50. HIDDEN PROBLEM, supra note 34, at xvii (presenting the proposed Prevention, Identification, and Treatment of Elder Abuse Act, H.R. 769, 97th Cong. (1981), as one option). Although the proposed legislation would have provided funds to states, it was controversial because it mirrored analogous federal child abuse reporting laws, and was seen by some as overly paternalistic and ageist.
51. See Nina Santo, Note, Breaking the Silence: Strategies for Combatting Elder Abuse in California, 31 MCGEORGE L. REV. 801, 807 n.50 (2000).
52. Moskowitz, supra note 26, at 84-85.
53. Richard D. Miller & Richard D. Dodder, The Abused: Abuser Dyad, Elder Abuse in the State of Florida, in ELDER ABUSE: PRACTICE AND POLICY 166, 167 (Rachel Filinson & Stanley R. Ingman eds., 1989).
54. See infra Part III (compiling elder abuse laws from the fifty states and the District of Columbia).
55. Compare, e.g., CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(g) (West 1999) (defining elders as sixty-five years old or older), with MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 265, § 13K (2006) (defining elders as sixty years old or older).
56. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(a)-(k) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
57. FLA. STAT. § 784.08 (elderly assault, battery) (2008);
58. id. § 825.102 (elder, vulnerable adult abuse, neglect);
59. id. § 825.1025 (elder, vulnerable adult sexual abuse);
60. id. § 825.103 (elder, vulnerable adult exploitation);
61. id. § 782.04 (murder);
62. id. § 782.07 (manslaughter);
63. id. § 775.0844 (elder white collar crime protection).
64. GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-20(a), (e) (2007) (elder assault);
65. id. § 16-5-21(a), (d) (aggravated elder assault);
66. id. § 16-5-23(3), (c) (simple elder battery);
67. id. § 16-5-23.1(3), (j) (elder battery);
68. id. § 16-5-100 (cruelty against elders);
69. id. § 16-8-12(b) (penalties for theft by deception against an elder);
70. id. § 16-8-40(a), (c) (robbery against elders);
71. id. § 16-9-6 (financial abuse against elders);
72. id. § 30-5-8 (penalties for abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elder or vulnerable adult).
73. HAW. REV. STAT. § 706-660.2 (1993) (imprisonment for crimes against children, elders, or handicapped persons);
74. id. § 444-10.7 (Supp. 2008) (enhanced penalties for targeting elders).
75. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/9-1(b)(16) (2001 & Supp. 2006) (murder of elder or vulnerable adult);
76. id. § 5/12-2 (aggravated assault against elder or vulnerable adult);
77. id. § 5/12-4 (aggravated battery against elder or vulnerable adult);
78. id. § 5/12-21 (abuse or neglect against elder or vulnerable adult);
79. id. § 5/16-1.3 (financial exploitation of elder or vulnerable adult);
80. id. § 5/18-1 (robbery against elder or vulnerable adult);
81. id. § 5/16G-20 (aggravated identity theft against elder or vulnerable adult).
82. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:35.2 (2007) (simple battery against elder or vulnerable adult);
83. id. § 14:67.21 (theft against elder or vulnerable adult);
84. id. § 14:93.3 (cruelty against elder or vulnerable adult) (2004);
85. id. § 14:93.4 (exploitation of elder or vulnerable adult);
86. id. § 14:93.5 (sexual battery against elder or vulnerable adult).
87. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 265, § 13K (2006) (physical and financial abuse against elder or vulnerable adult);
88. id. ch. 266, § 30(5) (larceny against elder or vulnerable adult).
89. MO. REV. STAT. § 565.180 (2000) (first degree elder abuse);
90. id. § 565.182 (second degree elder abuse);
91. § 565.184 (third degree elder abuse);
92. id. § 570.145 (financial exploitation of elder or vulnerable adult).
93. NEV. REV. STAT. § 193.167 (2007) (elder abuse penalty enhancements);
94. id. § 200.5099 (abuse of elder or vulnerable adult);
95. id. § 200.50995 (conspiracy to abuse, neglect, exploit elder or vulnerable adult).
96. OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 843.1 (2001 & Supp. 2006) (caretaker abuse against elder or vulnerable adult);
97. id. tit. 22, § 9918-16-20 (elder or vulnerable adult protection program).
98. Wis. STAT. § 940.19(6) (2007) (battery of elderly or vulnerable adult);
99. id. § 940.285 (vulnerable adult abuse);
100. id. § 940.295 (abuse and neglect of nursing home patients);
101. id. § 943.20 (theft against vulnerable adult).
102. D.C CODE § 22-3601 (Supp. 2008) (penalty enhancements for elder abuse);
103. id. § 22-933 (criminal abuse against vulnerable adult);
104. id. § 22-934 (criminal negligence against vulnerable adult);
105. id. § 22-936 (penalties for abuse or neglect against vulnerable adult).
106. ALA. CODE § 38-9-7 (1975 & Supp. 2008).
107. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-1802 (2001 & Supp. 2007) (theft of vulnerable adult);
108. id. § 13-3623 (abuse of vulnerable adult).
109. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-28-103 (2006).
110. COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 18-6.5-102-103 (2008).
111. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 31, § 3913 (1997 & Supp. 2006) (violations against vulnerable adults);
112. id. tit. 16, § 1136 (2003) (abuse and exploitation of long term care residents).
113. IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-1505 (1997).
114. IND. CODE § 12-10-3-2 (2008) (defining "endangered adult");
115. id. § 35-42-2-1 (battery);
116. id. § 35-46-1-4 (neglect);
117. id. § 35-46-1-12 (exploitation);
118. id. § 35-46-1-7 (failure to provide support for a parent).
119. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 39-943 (2000) (penalties for unlicensed adult care home operation);
120. id. § 21-3437 (vulnerable adult abuse);
121. id. § 21-3425 (confined person abuse).
122. MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW § 3-604 (LexisNexis 2002) (first degree abuse and neglect of vulnerable adult);
123. id. § 3-605 (second degree abuse and neglect of vulnerable adult);
124. id. § 8-801 (exploitation of vulnerable adult).
125. MINN. STAT. §§ 609.224,609.2325, 609.233, 609.2335 (2006).
126. MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-47-19 (1972).
127. MONT. CODE ANN. § 52-3-825 (2) (2007).
128. NEB. REV. STAT. § 28-386 (1995).
129. The New Jersey statute applies broadly to those with a legal duty to care, but is placed in this category because section 20:44-1 also creates criteria for withholding or imposing a sentence of imprisonment based on elder and disability statutes. NJ. STAT. ANN. § 20:44-1 (West 2008).
130. S.C. CODE ANN. § 43-35-85 (Supp. 2007).
131. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 22-30A-17 (1998) (theft);
132. id. § 22-46-2 (1998 & Supp. 2003) (abuse and neglect of vulnerable adult);
133. id. § 22-46-3 (exploitation of vulnerable adult).
134. TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 71-6-117, 71-6-119 (1995).
135. UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-5-111 (2003 & Supp. 2008) (abuse or neglect of vulnerable adult);
136. id. § 76-5-112.5 (2003) (endangerment of vulnerable adult).
137. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 33, § 6913 (2001 & Supp. 2007).
138. Most provisions in Washington require a legal duty, except section 9A.44.100, which specifically targets sexual crimes and has identified as a class of vulnerable victims, frail elders, or vulnerable adults. WASH. REV. CODE § 9A.44.100 (2008).
139. W. VA. CODE § 61-2-29 (2006).
140. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 6-2-507 (2007).
141. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53a-59a (2007).
142. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01, 22.04 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2008).
143. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2913.02-.21, 2913.31, 2913.43 (LexisNexis 2006 & Supp. 2007).
144. N.Y. PENAL LAW §§ 260.25, 260.32, 260.34 (McKinney 2000 & Supp. 2008).
145. ALASKA STAT. § 11.51.200-.210 (2006) (first and second degree welfare endangerment of vulnerable adult).
146. IOWA CODE § 235B.20 (2006) (abuse of vulnerable adult);
147. id. § 726.8 (2006) (wanton neglect or nonsupport of vulnerable adult).
148. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 209.990 (West 2006) (penalties for abuse of vulnerable adult by caretaker);
149. id. § 508.100-.120 (criminal abuse of vulnerable adult).
150. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 17-A, § 555 (2006) (endangering the welfare of a vulnerable adult).
151. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.21771 (1979 & Supp. 2007) (mistreatment of patient);
152. id. § 750.145n (abuse of vulnerable adult by caregiver);
153. id. § (liability for unlicensed facilities);
154. id. § 750.145p (abuse of vulnerable adult by caregiver);
155. id. § 750.174a (fraud or coercion of vulnerable adult).
156. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. 631:8 (2007).
157. N.M. STAT. §§ 30-47-4-6 (2008).
158. N.C GEN. STAT. § 14-32.3 (2005).
159. N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 12.1-31-07-08 (1997 & Supp. 2007).
160. OR. REV. STAT. § 163.200 (2007).
161. VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-369 (2004 & Supp. 2008).
162. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 4107 (West 1983 & Supp. 2008) (fraudulent business practices);
163. id. § 4120 (West Supp. 2008) (financial fraud);
164. PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 9717 (West 2007) (mandatory sentences).
165. R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 11-5-10-10.4, 11-5-11 (2002 & Supp. 2006).
166. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009) (emphasis added).
167. Id. § 368(c).
168. Id. § 368(b)(2)(A) (adding an additional term of three years where victim is sixty-five to sixty-nine).
169. Id. § 368(b)(2)(B) (adding an additional term of five years where victim is seventy or older).
170. Id. § 368(b)(3)(A)-(B) (adding an additional five and seven years respectively where victim is younger than seventy or seventy and older).
171. Id. § 368(d).
172. Id. § 368(e) (providing for fines as high as $1000 and state prison terms as high as four years).
173. See People v. Manis, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619, 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Heitzman, 886 P.2d 1229, 1240-41 (Cal. 1994);
174. see also People v. Valdez, 42 P.3d 511, 516 (Cal. 2002) (upholding constitutionality of Penal Code section 368 against challenge of vagueness as to meaning of "care").
175. Heitzman, 886 P.2d at 1237 ("The solution proposed... was to establish the same criminal penalties for the abuse of a dependent adult as those found in [California] Penal Code sections 273a and 273d for child abuse. When drafting the new legislation, the bill's author lifted the language of the child abuse statutes in its entirety, replacing the word 'child' with 'dependent adult' throughout." (citations omitted)).
176. People v. Sargent, 970 P.2d 409, 415 n.6 (Cal. 1999);
177. see also Heitzman, 886 P.2d at 1238 ("It is therefore appropriate to review the decisions interpreting [California Penal Code section 273(a)] to ascertain the reach of the statute at issue here.").
178. People v. Beaugez, 43 Cal. Rptr. 28, 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (citation omitted) (upholding defendant's conviction, and stating that section 273(a) is not void for vagueness).
179. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(a);
180. see abo People v. Curtiss, 300 P. 801, 804 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1931) (holding in case of teacher whipping pupil that it was a factual question for jury to decide whether the punishment was unreasonable, unnecessary, and cruel).
181. People v. Super. Ct. ex rel. Holvey, 252 Cal. Rptr. 335, 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
182. Id. at 340 (citing People v. Smith, 201 Cal. Rptr. 301, 318-19 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (analogizing language and intent of statute to child abuse statute)).
183. Id. (quoting People v. Peabody, 119 Cal. Rptr. 780, 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)).
184. Id. at 338.
185. Id. at 341
186. (citing Bowland v. Mun. Ct., 556 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Cal. 1976)).
187. Id. at 341-42.
188. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1), (c) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
189. See Sandra Conchie, Elderly Struggle as Family Grab Cash, N.Z. HERALD, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ section/1/story.cfm?c-id=1&objectid=10364625.
190. See sources cited supra note 23 and accompanying text.
191. For instance, the medical expert could describe to the jury such objective factual evidence as bleeding, suturing, scars, radiological images, bone fractures, and so forth.
192. Press Release, S.F. Dist. Att'ys Office, Man Charged with Elder Abuse, Assault and Battery for Attacking 81-Year-Old Woman with Motorcycle Helmet (July 25, 2006), available at http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/News.asp?id= 174.
193. Id.
194. Id.
195. Id.
196. Id.
197. Interview with A. Alan Kennedy, Asst. Dist. Att'y, S.F. Dist. Att'ys Office, in S.F., Cal. (Mar. 13, 2008) [hereinafter Interview with Kennedy].
198. Id.
199. Id.
200. Id.
201. Id.
202. Melissa McRobbie, Injured Dad Uses Equity to Bail out Son of Jail, PALO ALTO DAILY NEWS, Oct. 18, 2007, available at http://www.dailynewsgroup.com/article/2007-10-18-10-18-07- fc-assault.
203. Id.
204. Id.
205. John Coté, Son Didn't Use His Head in Trying to Put Father in Nursing Home, S.F. CHRON., Oct. 16, 2007, at D7.
206. Id.
207. McRobbie, supra note 126.
208. Id.
209. Jaxon Van Derbeken, Son, 41, Charged with Hammering Mother, 77, S.F. CHRON., May 18, 2006, at B4.
210. Id.
211. Id.
212. Van Derbeken, supra note 133.
213. Id.
214. Interview with Kennedy, supra note 121.
215. Dean Mosiman, Afraid to Cry Out: Law Enforcement Resources Tend to Be Focused on Younger Victims and Perpetrators, Experts Say, WIS. ST. J., NOV. 8, 2007, at A1, available at http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/index.php?ntid-254564.
216. Id. (emphasis omitted).
217. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
218. Id.
219. Mosiman, supra note 139 (emphasis omitted).
220. Although it is outside the scope of this Note, this study implicates three cases dealing with evidentiary rules regarding the admissibility of out-of-court statements: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), where the Court found that the testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial were inadmissible, unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination;
221. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 828 (2006), in which the Court held that statements made to the police that were necessary to resolve a present exigency were nontestimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause;
222. and People v. Cage, 155 P.3d 205, 207 (Cal. 2007), in which the California Supreme Court found that a statement made to a physician in the course of treating a medical injury was nontestimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
223. See Cage, 155 P.3d at 218.
224. See Mosiman, supra note 139 (emphasis omitted).
225. Id.
226. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(a) (West 1999).
227. Id. § 1048(b) (West 2008) ("Notwithstanding subdivision (a), all criminal actions in which... a person who was 70 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense or is a dependent adult,... shall be given precedence over all other criminal actions in the order of trial.").
228. Assemb. B. 1158, 2007-2008 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2008) (an act to amend CAL. PENAL CODE § 1340).
229. Press Release, Assemblyman John J.J. Benoit, Assembly Unanimously Approves Benoit Legislation on Elder Abuse Testimony (Jan. 29, 2008), available at http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/ members/a64/Index.aspx? page=PR&pr=4377.
230. CAL. EVID. CODE § 1380 (West 1995 & Supp. 2009), invalidated by People v. Pirwani, 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673,681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
231. See Pirwani, 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 681 (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38-41 (2004)).
232. See Assemb. B. 1158.
233. See supra notes 149-50 and accompanying text.
234. The italicized text denotes the proposed addition to California Penal Code section 368(b)(1). The remainder of the text is section 368(b)(1) as it appears now. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009). This proposed objective component is consistent with the legislature's intent and general wording and brings parity between the caregiver and noncaregiver abuser. It is related to section 273.5, which states: "Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or [parent] of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony...."
235. Id. § 273.5 (West 2008) (emphasis added).
236. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(c) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
237. See cases cited supra note 101 and accompanying text.
238. See People v. Sup. Ct. ex rel. Holvey, 252 Cal. Rptr. 335, 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (holding that a mens rea of criminal negligence is required under California Penal Code section 368).
239. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1) (emphasis added).
240. People v. Beaugez, 43 Cal. Rptr. 28, 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (citations omitted) (construing CAL. PENAL CODE § 273a (West 2008)). As discussed in Part IV, California's elder abuse statutes were directly modeled off of California Penal Code section 273a, among others.
241. See supra Part IV. As a result, this same analysis would be directly applicable to elder abuse.
242. CAL. PENAL CODE § 368(b)(1) (emphasis added);
243. see also id. § 368(c).
244. Beaugez, 43 Cal. Rptr. at 33.
245. 252 Cal. Rptr. at 341 (quoting Bowland v. Mun. Ct., 556 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Cal. 1976)).