Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A law that makes it a felony for one parent to beat another does not apply to the beating of a pregnant woman by the father of the fetus, a state appeals court said. The ruling disappointed Riverside County prosecutors, who are discussing whether to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court, said Deputy District Attorney Colleen Mass. **(Personal note here, I know this woman and she has to be heart broken. She has fought soooo hard against domestic violence. Her heart breaks every time a woman is beat, or a child is hurt or killed. She is not your typical DA, she goes to the mat for these people, Sue) "Other rulings have given broad interpretations to the laws about spousal abuse," Mass said. The ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeals stems from the prosecution of Branson S. Ward, who was charged with assaulting Thea Airrington, his former girlfriend, in her Riverside apartment in March 1996. Airrington, who broke up with Ward the previous month, was 3 1/2 months pregnant at the time of the attack. Ward grabbed her arms, pushed her down, grabbed her by the hair and slammed her head into a closet door, slapped her and squeezed her neck, the court said. Prosecutors said the two still were seeing each other, though not living together. Ward was convicted of two felonies, aggravated assault and battery on the mother of his child, and sentenced to six years in prison. The sentence was double the usual term because Ward had a previous violent felony conviction and was covered by the three-strikes law. As drafted, the law used to prosecute Ward imposed felony penalties of up to four years in prison for beatings that would normally be misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in jail, if the victim was the attacker's spouse of cohabitant. It was expanded in 1988 to include the beating of "the mother or father of (the attacker's) child." That amendment was used it the prosecution of Ward. Superior Court Judge W. Charles Morgan ruled that the parental violence law covered the beating of a pregnant woman. The appeals court, in overturning his ruling, said the law defines "mother" in a way that makes "the birth of a child...an essential prerequisite." The same law does not define "child" but other laws, prohibiting child abuse and neglect, have been interpreted to apply only to children after birth, said Justice Art McKinster in the 3-0 ruling. Mass, though, said murder statutes have provisions that allow someone to be charged in the death of a fetus. McKinster also rejected the state's argument that the law was intended to apply to all types of domestic violence, and said it was up to the Legislature to make that change. The attorney general's office may propose such a change, although it has not ruled out an appeal, said Deputy Attorney General Lilia Garcia, the state's lawyer. "We believe that a family relationship between the expectant mother and the batterer continues during the pregnancy, and she should be entitled to protection," Garcia said. Despite the ruling, Ward's prison sentence will not be reduced because it was legally based on the assault conviction, Garcia said. Diane Nicoles, Ward's lawyer, could not be reached for comment. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
