Elder abuse in California

Elder abuse is a crime in California, as described in Penal Code section 368. It’s a little complicated and can be hard to distinguish between the normal problems associated with taking care of an older person, including neglect and abuse. Conduct is criminal when a person willfully inflicts physical or mental pain on an elderly person, or when someone causes or permits an older person’s health to be endangered. This could include preventing an older person from taking necessary medications. The law also protects the elderly from financial abuse — exploiting an aged or frail mental state to gain access to his or her money or property. Punishment for elder abuse varies.

  • The facts of the case will dictate whether a criminal case will be charged as a felony or misdemeanor.
  • Misdemeanor elder abuse can result in one year in jail and up to $6,000 in fines: Penalties increase for repeat offenders.
  • Felony convictions can result in state prison, and up to $10,000 in fines.

Elder abuse investigations are difficult, as the authorities must try and distinguish between ordinary neglect and abuse. But for those charged with a crime for physical, emotional or financial abuse, the consequences may be severe.

Related case summaries

Defendant charged with elder abuse was not entitled to an instruction allowing the jury to consider his alleged mental incompetence because the offense requires only a general criminal intent.Defendant was convicted of elder abuse with force likely to cause great bodily harm or death under Penal Code section 368, subd.(b)(1). He argued the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning the extent to which it could consider evidence of mental incapacity in determining whether he had the requisite criminal intent. However, the offense requires only a general intent, and there need be no showing of an intent to inflict pain or suffering on an elder or dependant adult.id: 24989
Elder abuse enhancement under section 368, subd.(b)(3)(A) does not apply to murder or manslaughter.Defendants killed a 69 year-old acquaintance. One defendant was convicted of murder and the other manslaughter. Each defendant received a five year sentence enhancement for elder abuse pursuant to Penal Code section 368, subd.(b)(3)(A). However, murder and manslaughter are not included in the list of offenses set forth in section 368, subd.(b)(1). Therefore, the enhancements did not apply and were stricken.id: 16572

About Pat Ford

Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.

Case of the Day

The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.

Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850