## Facts

- Steven Christopher Whitehurst was prosecuted for two counts of inflicting corporal punishment on a child causing a traumatic condition (Cal. Penal Code § 273d): one involving his nine-year-old stepdaughter (Natalie P.) and one involving his natural son (Stephen W.).
- During a discussion at the family home about custody arrangements, Natalie repeatedly interrupted; when she approached again, Whitehurst backhanded her in the left rib area, causing her to fall and cry.
- After the incident, the children’s mother took the children to a relative’s home; the relative observed Natalie guarding her ribs and saw bruising on Natalie and Stephen.
- Child protective services were contacted, and authorities later interviewed the family; accounts about the degree of force and injury varied.
- At trial, Whitehurst and the mother acknowledged he hit Natalie but characterized the blow as not hard and as discipline for her repeated interruptions.
- The jury convicted Whitehurst of misdemeanor battery (Cal. Penal Code § 242) on the count involving Natalie and acquitted him on the count involving Stephen; the court placed him on probation.
- On appeal, Whitehurst argued instructional error, including the absence of an instruction on the parental right to reasonably discipline a child.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on a parent’s (or one acting in loco parentis) right to use reasonable physical force to discipline a child when that theory was supported by the evidence.
2. Whether the court was required to instruct on an asserted lesser included offense under Cal. Penal Code § 273a, subd. (2).
3. Whether the court erred in giving an instruction permitting consideration of prior misconduct evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.
- The court held the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on lawful parental discipline because it was a central defense theory supported by the evidence.
- The omission was prejudicial because the jury received only standard battery instructions (including “force and violence”) without guidance that some physical force may be lawful as reasonable discipline.
- Because reversal was required on the instructional omission, the court did not grant relief on the remaining claims, but noted they should be addressed carefully on retrial.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court must instruct sua sponte on general principles of law closely connected to the facts and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.
- In prosecutions involving parent-child physical discipline, when substantial evidence supports a defense that the force used was reasonable punishment, the court must instruct on the parental-discipline justification and its limits.
- Standard battery instructions may be insufficient in this context because they do not explain that otherwise proscribed touching can be lawful if it constitutes reasonable parental discipline.
- Failure to instruct on a supported, central justification theory can be prejudicial when it effectively removes that theory from the jury’s consideration.

## Conclusion

The conviction for misdemeanor battery was reversed because the jury was not instructed that a parent or one acting in a parental role may lawfully use reasonable physical force to discipline a child, and the absence of that guidance prevented proper evaluation of the defense theory that the conduct was justified.


People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)