California v. Meza
Annotate this CaseJimmy Flores Meza appealed his conviction for misdemeanor child endangerment. He was charged about two years after he assaulted his 17-year-old daughter on the street. At the State's request and without objection from Meza, the trial court directed the jury that it could find him guilty of felony child endangerment or the lesser included offense of misdemeanor child endangerment. A jury found him not guilty of the felony, but guilty of the misdemeanor. On appeal, Meza argued for reversal because the one-year statute of limitations had run on the misdemeanor offense. The State argued Meza forfeited this ground for attacking his conviction because his attorney generally assented to the State's requested jury instructions. The Court of Appeal concluded general consent to a prosecutor’s packet of instructions did not forfeit the statute of limitations objection. Because it was uncontested Meza’s misdemeanor conviction was time-barred, the Court reversed judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.