Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

A Mission Viejo woman faces charges of child neglect and drug possession after police reportedly found her three year-old daughter outside and unattended late at night. They claim that the mother was under the influence of drugs at the time, and that she therefore endangered the child by failing to supervise her. If convicted, she could receive a sentence of a year or more in prison.

At around 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2012, Orange County sheriff's deputies responded to reports of a toddler wandering unattended in an apartment complex parking lot. Reports indicated the child had been outside at least twenty minutes, "crying and screaming for her mother." Deputies canvassed the complex and found an apartment with an open door. They say they entered the residence when no one responded to their knocks. The child's mother, 29 year-old Milanya Mundell, had allegedly locked herself in the master bedroom. Deputies say that she refused to come out of the room, and that they heard the toilet flush multiple times. Once she opened the door, deputies say that Mundell "appeared to be under the influence of a narcotic." They reportedly found a "loaded syringe" in the bedroom, although news reports do not identify the syringe's contents. Narcotics investigators obtained a search warrant and returned to the apartment later, where they reportedly found drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Continue reading "After Orange County Police Find a Toddler Wandering a Parking Lot Alone, They Arrest the Mother for Child Neglect and Drugs" »

Prosecutors have charged a 44 year-old New Jersey mother, Patricia Krentcil, with second-degree child endangerment after an incident at a tanning salon. Authorities alleged that Krentcil's six year-old daughter received serious burns from a tanning bed. The case has received extensive media coverage, with much of the focus on the mother's tanning habits. The actual evidence revealed so far leaves considerable doubts as to exactly what might have happened that day.

In mid-April, 2012, school officials reported that the kindergarten student, who was five years old at the time, came to school with a serious sunburn. She reportedly complained of itching and told school staff that she had recently been to a tanning salon with her mother. Law enforcement alleges that Krentcil took the child with her to City Tropics Salon and brought her into a stand-up tanning booth, causing the child's burns. A sign reportedly posted at the salon states that no one under the age of fourteen may use the tanning facility, per state law.

A sunburn quickly became a criminal case. Police arrested Krentcil on Tuesday, April 24, and charged her with second-degree child endangerment, defined in part as causing harm to a child that constitutes statutorily-defined abuse or neglect. Krentcil pleaded not guilty on Wednesday and is free on a $2,500 cash bond. The child remains with her parents, although the father reportedly received formal temporary custody.

Continue reading "Mother Arrested for Allegedly Putting 5 Year-Old in Tanning Bed" »

An Orange County man has received a sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison for the death of nine month-old Isiah Prim-Ortiz. Alexander Lucas Barnes, age 20, was accused of killing Prim-Ortiz by smashing his head into a wall. A jury convicted Barnes based mostly on circumstantial evidence last year, and a judge issued the sentence in late February.

Prim-Ortiz was the son of Barnes' girlfriend. On October 6, 2009, according to prosecutors, Barnes was babysitting the child for the first time while the mother went to a nearby community college for class. At some point during the morning, Barnes hit Prim-Ortiz in the head to get him to stop crying. He reportedly then put the child down for a nap at approximately 1:00 p.m. Barnes' mother came home later and found that Prim-Ortiz was not breathing. The child was pronounced dead at the hospital at 4:00 p.m., with multiple skull fractures listed as the cause of death.

Santa Ana police arrested Barnes after conducting an investigation. Prosecutors charged Barnes with two felony counts, murder and child abuse. His trial began in October 2011 in a Santa Ana courtroom. Prosecutors had to rely on circumstantial evidence, since no one witnessed the alleged abuse. Medical evidence from the autopsy showed that Prim-Ortiz had numerous "linear fractures" on the right side of his skull and a 4½-inch fracture on the left side, with three serious skull fractures in total. Prosecutors also argued that Barnes was jealous of Prim-Ortiz's father, fearing the child could cause the parents to reunite.

The jury found Barnes guilty on November 3 of second degree murder and child abuse resulting in death, both felonies under California law. His sentencing, originally scheduled for January 13, took place on February 24. He received the maximum sentence allowed by law, twenty-five years to life in prison.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Gets 25 Years to Life in Prison for Death of Infant" »

A mother and daughter in Long Beach face charges of child endangerment and filing a false police report after the mother claimed to have found a baby abandoned in a gas station parking lot. Sonia Hernandez allegedly told police that she found a newborn baby girl wrapped in a plastic bag at around 7:45 p.m. She told police and the media that she thought at first that the bag contained cat food, but that she found the baby when she looked inside. Hernandez reportedly said she took the baby home before calling 911. The baby then went to the hospital, where she was treated for low body temperature and had traces of drugs in her system. The baby is now in the custody of the county's Department of Children and Family services.

Upon further investigation, police began to suspect that Hernandez was not telling them the truth. They eventually concluded that Hernandez was in fact the child's grandmother, and that the child had been born several hours before the 911 call. Hernandez's daughter, 28 year-old Paloma Espinoza, is the child's mother. Hernandez reportedly claimed that Espinoza did not know she was pregnant until shortly before she gave birth. Police believe Espinoza gave the baby to Hernandez, and that Hernandez then made the 911 call.

Police now suspect that Espinoza gave the child to Hernandez in order to hide the birth from Espinoza's female partner. Police say Espinoza felt unable to care for the child since she preferred to preserve her relationship. Espinoza also reportedly admitted to giving birth to the child in a bathroom in her home. She then reportedly left the baby unattended with other children in her apartment for some amount of time before giving her to Hernandez.

Both women have been charged with misdemeanor offenses, but only Espinoza is in police custody. Espinoza faces one charge each of child endangerment and child abandonment. Authorities were holding her on $50,000 bail. Hernandez has been charged with one count each of filing a false police report and obstructing a police investigation. All of the charged offenses are misdemeanors. Each woman faces up to two years in county jail if convicted.

Continue reading "Two California Women Charged with Alleged Abandonment of a Child" »

A recent lawsuit has put the story of Douglas Perlitz back in the news. Perlitz operated a school in Cap-Haitien, Haiti for more than a decade before he was accused of abusing boys in his care. Twenty-one Haitian men claiming to be victims of Perlitz's abuse have filed federal lawsuits in recent months against Perlitz and others seeking damages. The government prosecuted Perlitz under a federal statute dealing with child trafficking. Although the most explicitly criminal conduct occurred in Haiti, federal law allows prosecution in the United States, demonstrating that U.S. criminal jurisdiction can have a very long reach.

Perlitz founded Project Pierre Toussant (PPT) in Cap-Haitien, Haiti's second-largest city, in 1997 as a program to help street children. PPT provided shelter, food, and basic education for children living on the streets. Perlitz raised millions of dollars through grants and donations, and PPT grew to occupy a 10-acre compund with a school, dormitories, and a soccer field.

Allegations of abuse began to appear in 2007, when several boys spoke to teachers and other adults in and around PPT. According to CNN, no one believed them for some time, citing all the good Perlitz had done for the community. One donor and a journalist interviewed by CNN tried to get PPT employees to act, but had little success. Eventually, an American volunteer at PPT conveyed accusations of abuse of younger boys by older ones, and this brought the matter to the attention of U.S. authorities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took on the case in 2009. After an investigation, they arrested Perlitz in September of that year. A federal grand jury in Connecticut indicted him on ten counts related to the alleged abuse. Seven counts involved traveling outside of the U.S. for the purpose of having sex with minors, and three involved sexual conduct with minors abroad. Perlitz pleaded guilty to one "traveling outside the U.S." count in August 2010. In December 2010, a judge sentenced him to just under twenty years in prison.

The federal government has prohibited transporting minors across state lines for sexual purposes since 1910, when Congress passed the Mann Act. It originally applied primarily to transportation across state lines within the U.S. In an effort to fight international sex trafficking, Congress passed the PROTECT Act in 2003, which amended the existing law to include activities conducted on foreign soil.

Continue reading "American Man Convicted for Sexual Abuse Occurring in Haiti" »

A man accused of hitting his seven year-old son and then throwing him off of a tour boat in Newport Harbor last summer was convicted of child endangerment in early January. The court did not sentence him to any further jail time, instead imposing three years of probation and additional conditions. The case prompted some outrage because of the danger posed to the child, and prosecutors have expressed displeasure with the sentence.

In late August 2011, Sloan Briles, age 35, was on a tour boat with his girlfriend and his two sons from a previous marriage, ages 6 and 7. The boat, called the Queen, took passengers around Newport Harbor past various celebrity homes. According to the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Briles got into an argument with his girlfriend. The two boys witnessed the argument, and the 7 year-old appeared upset. Briles, apparently under the influence of alcohol, told the child that he would throw him overboard if he did not stop crying. Witnesses said that, as the 7 year-old was walking behind his father near the bow of the boat, Briles hit the boy, then picked him up and threw him into the water.

The Queen's crew stalled the boat, according to the district attorney, and maneuvered to try to protect the child. The captain threw him a life ring. Three other boats reportedly saw what happened and moved in to help. One of them got him out of the water and returned him to the Queen. The district attorney said that Briles eventually jumped into the water to avoid the other 85 people on the Queen, who were reportedly quite angry with him.

A sheriff's patrol boat arrived on the scene. Briles was pulled back on board the Queen, and he was reportedly hostile to law enforcement. A sheriff's deputy, according to the department, suffered minor injuries while arresting Briles. Briles maintained at the time that both he and his son had jumped into the water for fun.

Prosecutors charged Briles with child endangerment. Law enforcement noted three significant dangers to the child. Because he went into the water near the bow, the boat itself or the propeller could have hit him, causing serious injury or even killing him. In the crowded harbor, another boat could have hit him. Finally, the district attorney's office claims the boy was not a strong swimmer. Briles pleaded guilty to one felony count of child endangerment and a misdemeanor count of resisting an officer based on an offer from the court.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Who Threw Son Off a Tour Boat Gets Probation" »

A Connecticut man who allegedly dropped a joint in his 18 month-old son's lunch has been charged with drug possession and child endangerment. Staffers at the child's day care in Clinton, Connecticut noticed something in the child's lunch box around noon on Thursday, December 1, 2011. Upon inspection, it appeared to be a marijuana-filled cigarette. The observant staffers contacted the police, who interviewed the child's father that afternoon. Upon ascertaining that the father had apparently dropped the joint by accident into the lunch box the night before while preparing the child's lunch, police arrested the man. A search of the man's home turned up less than an ounce of marijuana and some drug paraphernalia, according to police. Despite ever-harsher tactics in the government's War on Drugs, police thankfully did not arrest the man's toddler son.

Police charged the man with possessing a controlled substance and with risk of injury to or "impairing the morals of" a child. They released him on his own recognizance. He must return to court December 22. Generally speaking, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, by itself, is not treated as a serious criminal offense. When combined with other offenses, however, any drug possession offense can become quite serious.

The offense of "injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children" is a class B felony under Connecticut law, with a potential prison sentence of one to twenty years. The statute defines it as willfully or unlawfully placing a child in a situation that could injure the child's health or impair the child's morals. The definition of "morals" is almost by necessity a fuzzy one, but here presumably prosecutors would argue that allowing a young child to possess an outlawed drug is dangerous to the child's health and/or morals. The health risk of letting a child come into contact with marijuana is not too far-fetched. The moral risk to an 18 month-old child is not nearly as clear, unless they mean the criminal risk inherent in possessing marijuana in and of itself, a tautological argument if ever there was one. Should this case ever go to trial, prosecutors would likely cast it in terms of child protection more than drug possession, focusing on the father's alleged lapse in judgment rather than the legally negligible amount of marijuana involved.

Continue reading "Man Allegedly Packs Pot in His Son's Lunch, Now Faces Drug Charges" »

Police arrested former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky on November 5. Sandusky faces charges of sexual abuse of multiple young boys. Two high-level administrators at Penn State, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz, face charges of lying to a grand jury about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged crimes. The ensuing scandal is putting pressure on legendary head football coach Joe Paterno to account for his own role in the situation. While the criminality of child sexual abuse is hopefully clear to everyone, this case also illustrates the potential criminal consequences for people who might know of such abuse and who fail to report it.

Sandusky served as a defensive coordinator for Penn State's football program for twenty-three years, retiring in 1999. He maintained a presence at the school even after his retirement. Pennsylvania's Attorney General is accusing Sandusky of committing multiple acts of sexual abuse of young boys, sometimes on the Penn State campus, over a period from at least 1994 to 2009. Sandusky allegedly used his position within the famed Penn State football program to lure in children.

One alleged incident involved a graduate assistant who claimed to have seen Sandusky in 2002 in a locker room shower with a young boy engaging in an apparent sex act. The graduate assistant reported this to Paterno, who passed it on to the school administration in accordance with state law. The graduate assistant now says no one from law enforcement ever questioned him about the incident until he gave grand jury testimony in December 2010. Curley, during his grand jury testimony, characterized the incident as "horsing around" and denied that the graduate assistant reported sexual abuse at the time. It is worth noting that even mere "horsing around" in the shower is hardly appropriate behavior.

Paterno faces allegations of behaving inappropriately, if not outright illegally, if he knew of any alleged abuse and failed to act. State law in Pennsylvania requires employees of the university to report allegations of child abuse. This is particularly true for the university since it is a state-run educational institution. So far, prosecutors have given no indication that they have plans for charges against Paterno. His role in the scandal, however, will probably be key to the prosecution of both Sandusky and the two administrators.

Continue reading "Sex Abuse Scandal at Penn State Ensnares More than Just the Alleged Abuser" »

Children in foster care across the country suffer from identity theft in alarming numbers. Children in general have a higher risk of identity theft than adults, according to a recent Forbes article, but foster children face an even greater risk because of their often vulnerable position. As many as 30% of foster children may become identity theft victims. Since children tend not to have credit cards or mortgages in their names, their Social Security numbers offer a blank slate for opportunistic thieves. Even worse, children usually do not learn about how their information has been compromised until they become adults and try to obtain credit. This can prevent foster children, who have often endured substantial hardship already, from enjoying many of the privileges of adulthood.

Identity theft among foster children presents a problem from the standpoint of criminal law. Foster children often come from troubled family situations with few resources. They may find themselves saddled not only with huge amounts of debt they cannot pay, but with other contractual obligations and little understanding of what happened and what they must do. Without careful handling of a victim's personal information, a foster child could face unforeseen penalties for acts committed by the identity thief.

Foster children aging out of the system and discovering the theft for the first time often discover massive unpaid bills, credit cards, and utilities in their names. The perpetrators are often known to the victim, including family members needing access to credit. Researchers looking into this problem also found wrongdoing by some foster parents and child welfare workers, as well as simple errors in credit reporting. Los Angeles child welfare workers reviewed credit reports for over 2,000 foster children in their system and found significant problems in the reports for 5% of the children. The average account balance was $1,811, and one child had a $217,000 mortgage.

A new federal law, signed by President Obama in September, requires state officials to run credit checks on foster children who are nearing age 18, at which point they leave the care of the state's child welfare agency. The law also requires child welfare officials to help foster children repair credit problems that turn up on the credit search. This may include negotiating or resolving debts incurred by the identity thief and removing false information from the credit file.

Continue reading "Preventing Identity Theft Among Foster Children" »

A year after Governor Schwarzenegger signed "Chelsea's Law," the law has already had a significant impact on arrests and criminal charges, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. San Diego County has used the law to impose stricter penalties on nineteen people with its enhanced sentencing provisions. A nonprofit organization established to support the law, the Chelsea's Light Foundation, compiled this data and is hoping to help law enforcement in the rest of California to collect data on the law's impact. Chelsea's Law increases penalties for certain sex crimes against children, provides for lifetime monitoring of certain parolees, and creates procedures for assessing and containing offenders at risk of repeat offenses.

The law was inspired by the case of Chelsea King, a 17 year-old resident of Poway, California, near San Diego, who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in 2010 by John Gardner. Gardner, who was already a registered sex offender, is now serving two life prison sentences for Chelsea's murder and the murder of 14 year-old Amber Dubois. Gardner had served five years of a six-year sentence, beginning in 2000, after molesting his 13 year-old neighbor. He repeatedly violated his parole after his release from prison. Republican Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher of San Diego authored the bill that would become Chelsea's Law, and the governor signed it on September 9, 2010. Chelsea's parents, Kelly and Brent King, created the Chelsea's Light Foundation in part to support the law's passage and its implementation. They have also stated that they intend to promote similar laws in other states.

Chelsea's Law contains substantial increases in possible sentences for people convicted of sex crimes against children. It allows life sentences for both first-time and repeat offenders in cases involving the kidnapping of children with the use of drugs, torture, or weapons. The law also provides for lifetime GPS monitoring, as a condition of parole, for convictions of forcible sex crimes. Previously, GPS monitoring would end if an offender left parole. Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law in September 2011 that makes small changes to the law, implementing a "containment model" meant to identify sex offenders at risk of new offenses and providing for treatment. This process includes polygraph testing and assessments by certified professionals to assess the risk of committing new crimes. Another new law signed by Governor Brown provide immunity to professionals doing risk assessments in the event offenders commit new crimes.

Continue reading "First Year of "Chelsea's Law" in California" »

Mourad Samaan abducted his daughter after receiving notice the child's mother had been awarded full custody. Although the two were subject to an Amber Alert, the abduction ended in tragedy. Mourad Samaan and his two-year-old daughter Madeline were found dead with gunshot wounds inflicted by the father.

This type of cowardly act is still rare but becoming more commonplace. The first time I heard of this type of crime was many years ago in Orange County when a man set his son on fire in a hotel room. Apparently, the father was going to commit suicide too, but turned yellow and fled instead. This type of crime has now occasionally surfaced throughout the United States.

Although these horrific crimes come under the umbrella of criminal law, they are really a result of some family law conflict. This may appear to be an academic designation, but I think it is important. Once these types of events happen, the criminal justice system is left to pick up the pieces.

While I am no expert in family law, I have had some exposure to the system. Many friends of mine practice family law and, although every case has its own unique headaches, each attorney is fully aware of his "problem cases." It goes without saying, if attorneys know which cases are problematic, the judge probably does too.

I can understand the reluctance of family courts to use harsh measures against people engaged in a divorce and/or custody battle. The people are definitely going through the most difficult time in their lives. However, the outright hatred and vengeance some of these parties inflict upon one another surpasses just about anything in criminal law.

It seems to me, many parties get away with conduct in family law which would result in jail time in the criminal courts. I am not advocating bail be set in family law cases (although I am sure many a family law attorney would welcome it). What I am advocating, however, is more responsibility in problem cases. I remember, many years ago, when there was an explosion of allegations of sexual abuse claims against fathers. Undoubtedly, some were true but many of these claims were determined to be fictitious creations of the other parent and their attorney. This was an obvious attempt to get leverage on the opposing party by using outrageous, false claims. Fortunately, the courts did a good job weeding these cases out.

I think family law courts should institute a zero tolerance policy with respect to major problem cases. That is, the cases should be moved along quickly and severe penalties handed down for conduct which is either litigious or vexatious.

There may be nothing that can be done to stop these horrific crimes; however, a hard line approach to problem cases may cause some parties to realize their outrageous conduct is not just an assault on the opposing party but on the court system as well.

As previously discussed, a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony in the 2008 death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. After a trial of over one month, it took the jury less than 12 hours to find her not guilty of first degree murder; not guilty of aggravated child abuse; and not guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child. Anthony was found guilty of four counts of giving authorities false information. She faces up to four years in jail but has about three years credit.

As I indicated in an earlier blog, there were bound to be extreme emotions regardless of the outcome. From the beginning, the media has made this case their own. All of the elements for a national media circus were present: Beautiful child missing, unsympathetic mother, damning circumstantial evidence and three years to show it. People began to invest themselves in this case like no other case since O.J. Simpson. Most people weren't looking for the truth; they were looking for something to bolster their first impressions.

Casey Anthony surely did not do herself any favors with her odd behavior, including numerous lies regarding the child's whereabouts and her carefree party lifestyle. Given the situation, many people saw these as the actions of a criminal, or even a lunatic. It is important to realize, however, most of us don't really know how we would act under such circumstances and, those of us who do, cannot know how others would act.

Before any of Casey Anthony's odd behavior is reviewed, though, it is necessary to first find out what happen. That is, before you can find a murderer, you must first find a murder. Perhaps this is what the jury had difficulty with. The remains of the unfortunate child did not produce the type of evidence the District Attorney would liked to have had.

An impartial jury was subjected to a very emotional and unique case. Based upon all of the evidence I have seen, they performed their duty admirably. A jury verdict is not a popularity contest. Do not be too hard on this jury because, maybe someday, you may need an impartial jury to decide the fate of a loved one. If that happens, you will pray the jury is influenced by the facts instead of emotions.

Gabriela Morales and her boyfriend, Alberto Guzman, are on trial for the murder of 4-year-old Brandon Morales. Brandon Morales, son of Gabriela Morales, died of brain injuries allegedly inflicted by the pair. Both Morales and Guzman face 25 years to life in prison.

Whereas the People argued mother and boyfriend were equally guilty, attorneys for Morales countered she was also a victim of Guzman. She was immobilized by fear of losing her children or being deported said Morales's attorney Celia Laureles.

Prosecutor Larry Yellin said both were insidious child abusers. Testimony submitted during the trial indicated the child had been severely abused for a very long period. Paramedics arrived at the residence in May 2008. The mother had summoned the paramedics for help but, by the time they arrived, it was too late. The child was pronounced dead at St. Joseph's Hospital in Orange.

Prosecutors have argued Morales had a duty to protect Brandon from the continual abuse by Guzman, but she did not.

These types of cases are the most heart-breaking in the criminal justice system. When an innocent child's life is brutally ended by someone responsible for his/her safety, people ask "How could this happen?" There is no easy answer. All that is left is to hope justice will be served.

Casey Anthony will soon go on trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylie. A WFTV reporter sat down with a legal expert to review possible defenses.

One defense could be the child's death was an accident. The problem with this defense, however, is the mother waited nearly one month to report something had happened to her daughter. Another problem is the way in which the body was found: duct taped and in a bag.

The expert also noted trying to convince a jury that someone else did it would be a tough sale because Casey Anthony had already blamed a person who does not exist.

A good criminal defense attorney prepares his defense before he goes to trial. This legal expert's discussion gives interesting insight into this process. Some cases go to trial because the plea offer is so high, even a loss in trial will not result in more jail or prison time. Most cases which go to trial, however, have genuine issues related to guilt or innocence.

A defense attorney who goes to trial in Orange County, California, be it in a case of DUI, theft, domestic violence or what have you, should first be familiar with the judge he/she will be in front of. A defense attorney's familiarity with the bench is generally a good indicator of his/her trial experience. Additionally, not all defenses work in all cases. Generally, a self-defense argument is of little value in a DUI case, for example.

In heinous, high-profile cases, with substantial negative publicity, presenting a defense can be much more difficult. A trial in front of a neutral jury is tough, but one in front of a negative jury is impossible.

A Santa Rosa woman was arrested for possible DUI when the vehicle she was traveling in ran off the road and ended up in a ditch. In the car were also the woman's children, ages 6, 4 and 2. The woman and her two oldest children were ejected from the vehicle while the 2-year-old remained strapped in his carseat. The woman and her two children were taken to the hospital. None of the injuries were believed to be life-threatening.

Police believe the vehicle, a large SUV, was traveling at a high rate of speed because the wooden posts of the guardrail were sheared off and the metal barrier was twisted in a loop in the ditch where the SUV came to rest.

In these types of cases, it is typical for the prosecution to file child endangerment charges in addition to the driving under the influence [usually felony] charges. The Penal Code section often used for these charges is California Penal Code section 273a, subsections (a) and (b).

§273a. Abusing or Endangering Heath of, Child - Punishment; Conditions of Probation.
(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
(b) Any person, who under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

As can be seen, the punishment, state prison versus local jail, is the difference in these two sections. This is because one deals with great bodily harm or death and the other does not. When child endangerment charges are added to DUI cases, the exposure to substantial incarceration is greatly increased. In addition, if the case proceeds to trial, it must be anticipated the defendant will not generate a great deal of jury sympathy.