Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by People v. Edmonton, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 (2003)
In doing so, we respectfully disagree with the analysis of Valentine, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 1241, 113 Cal. Rptr.2d 748.
Disagreed with by People v. Leal, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 374 (2003)
We respectfully disagree with the analysis of Valentine, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 1241, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 748.
The opinion
I concur in the judgment only. The majority's analysis of legislative intent pertaining to the issue of whether "hardship" was intentionally eliminated from the term "menace" for purposes of Penal Code sections 288 and 289 is debatable, in my view. The majority's analysis on the issue is very close to engaging in judicial legislation. The Legislature may very well have had good reason to retain "threat of hardship" as inclusive in the term "menace" under the aforementioned Penal Code sections. I am willing, however, to engage in speculation with the majority as an act of legitimate statutory interpretation that the term was intended to be dropped by the Legislature, but I am uncomfortable in doing so. I respectfully invite the Legislature to revisit this issue at an early date for possible remedial legislation if the majority opinion indeed countermands the original intention of the Legislature. *Page 1256