People v. Pruitt CA1/5

Filed 8/23/23 P. v. Pruitt CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162580 v. JARROD A. PRUITT, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 52007532) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Jarrod A. Pruitt (appellant) appeals following his conviction of several charges stemming from an April 2020 domestic violence incident. The parties agree the trial court’s instructions erroneously permitted appellant to be convicted of child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b))1 on a theory of indirect harm without a showing of criminal negligence. We agree with respondent that the error was harmless. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count one) with a deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); injuring a spouse, cohabitant, or person with a past or present dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count two); assault by means likely to produce

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count three); and misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b); count four). A jury found appellant not guilty of the three felony offenses alleged in counts one through three. On count two appellant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery of a person in a dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), and on count three he was found guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault (§ 240). He was found guilty as charged on count four. In April 2021, appellant was placed on four years’ probation, with conditions including that he serve 45 days in jail. The present appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In May 2019, Jane Doe 1 and her daughter, Jane Doe 2, moved in with appellant and his son at their home Richmond. On April 12, 2020, at 12:37 a.m., Deputy Ryan Shaw was dispatched to the home appellant shared with Jane Doe 1 and the children.2 The deputy contacted Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (who was 10 years old) in the living room. Jane Doe 1’s eyes were red, watery, and swollen. Both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were visibly shaken. Jane Doe 2 told the deputy, “I’m still shaking.” The hallway between the bedroom and the bathroom was in “disarray,” with shampoo and 20–50 pieces of broken glass on the ground. Jane Doe 1’s clothing was covered with soap and shampoo. At trial, Jane Doe 1 testified she had been in an on-and-off relationship with appellant for almost seven years. On the evening in question, Jane