California Court of Appeal

Conviction for child endangerment is affirmed where the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the meaning of the term "likely" in the child endangerment statute as the failure to give the jury the legal definition of the term was not prejudicial to defendant and could not have affected the verdict.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/14/2009
• Published 05/14/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Phillip I. Bronson, Encino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Derman and Theodore M. Cropley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.