Domestic Battery 243e

As with most criminal cases, one possible defense is that the prosecution witnesses and/or the alleged victim simply made the whole thing up. Perhaps this can be shown by pointing out inconsistent statements in what prosecution witnesses say. Or maybe the physical evidence, or lack thereof, can be used to point out some problems with the prosecution’s version of events. Or maybe there is other evidence available that the prosecution did not previously consider, including eyewitness testimony or even video or photographic evidence. A good defense of a PC 243(e)(1) charge should explore all of these possible avenues.

Another defense to a PC 243(e)(1) charge is self-defense. Like fabrication, self-defense is an issue that should be explored in any defense on a charge of battery, assault, or any other charge of violence against another person.

Force or violence that would otherwise be considered a battery in California is lawful if the defendant

• Reasonably and imminently feared for their safety at the time
• Reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent that threat AND
• Used no more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances

Defense of others is also a defense to a domestic or spousal battery charge. The elements of this defense are the same as self-defense, only the defense has to show that the force used was necessary to prevent an imminent threat to others, not themselves.

Note that an argument for self-defense or defense of others does not require the defense to prove that there actually was a threat to their safety. Self-defense and defense of others applies when the defendant “reasonably believes” that they need to use force to defend themselves.

For example, suppose that a husband and wife have a heated argument, and the wife says more than once that she just might shoot the husband later. Afterward, the wife picks up an unloaded gun, knowing that it is unloaded, because she wants to frighten the husband. The husband, seeing his wife pointing a gun at him just as she said earlier, punches the wife in the face at close range to get the gun out of her hand. In this case, the husband might never have actually been in danger. But he can probably argue self-defense successfully because he reasonably believed that the force used (the punch) was necessary to prevent being shot, and a punch to the face is no more severe than the harm he reasonably anticipated (a gunshot).

Also note that the defense does not have the burden to prove self-defense or defense of others once the issue is raised. Remember, the prosecutor has to show that the force used was “unlawful.” Force used in self-defense or defense of others lawful, however. So, if the defense fairly raises the issue, then it becomes the prosecutor’s burden to DISPROVE each element of self-defense or defense of others, or else the jury will have reasonable doubt as to whether the force used was “unlawful.”

As mentioned above, it does not matter on a charge of PC 243(e)(1) whether the defendant specifically intended to hurt, injure, or use force on the victim. However, the prosecutor still has to show that the defendant acted “wilfully.” If the defendant caused force or violence to the victim involuntarily, then the defendant did not act “wilfully.” Consider an example where two spouses are arguing very aggressively with one another at the top of a staircase. Someone from behind pushes into them, causing one spouse to bump the other down the stairs. The spouse who fell down has definitely experienced some kind of force or violence, and probably got seriously hurt. But there was no wilful action here; the other spouse was pushed into them, and so did not act “wilfully.”

If you are concerned about immigration consequences to your case, be sure to consult with an immigration attorney as your criminal case progresses so that you can fully understand the possible consequences to your immigration status.