# People v. Valentine

> California Court of Appeal · November 21, 2001 · 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 748

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943831

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY ALAN VALENTINE, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** November 21, 2001
- **Citations:** 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 748; 93 Cal. App. 4th 1241; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12319; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9876; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 2202
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Woods
- **Judges:** Johnson, Woods
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by People v. Edmonton, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943831

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943831. Public record. Not legal advice.