“One Of These Days, Alice….Pow…Straight To The Moon!,” Ralph Kramden. (but spousal battery is no longer funny . . and no longer tolerated.)

Indirect touching is sufficient to constitute a battery. A criminal defendant [the hubby] contended there was no indirect touching of his wife because the only thing that happened was that his car collided with another car being driven by his wife. The Court of Appeal rejected his argument stating: “[W]e conclude [defendant] did commit a battery because the evidence demonstrated that the force of the collision he intentionally caused almost made the victim lose control of her car and, as a result, she had to wrestle with the steering wheel in order to keep her car on the road and avoid hitting other vehicles parked along the curb. Although there is a dearth of California case law addressing criminal battery consisting of this type of indirect touching–one vehicle striking another without direct contact with the victim – our decision is consistent with case law from other jurisdictions which have considered the issue.”(People v. Dealba (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; December 7, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1142 [195 Cal.Rptr.3d 848].)