Does Section 273.5 apply where a defendant inflicts corporal injury on a "cohabitant" or "former cohabitant"?

Section 273.5 applies where a defendant inflicts corporal injury on a "cohabitant" or "former cohabitant." ( 273.5, subd. (a).) "The term `cohabitant' has been interpreted `broadly' to refer to those `"living together in a substantial relationship-one manifested, minimally, by permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy."' [Citations.] `The element of "permanence" in the definition refers only to the underlying "substantial relationship," not to the actual living arrangement.' [Citation.] Permanence does not require exclusivity in either the relationship or the living arrangement. [Citation.]" (People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 11, 18-19.)

Doe described her relationship with defendant to the officer as a two-year-long intimate relationship in which the couple regularly saw each other and spent the night together. Defendant attacks the officer's testimony, parsing it and suggesting alternative inferences that could be drawn from Doe's statements. But the foregoing authorities make clear, this approach fails to show the trial court erred in amending the complaint. To set aside the information, there must be "`a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged.' [Citation.]" (People v. Plengsangtip (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 825, 835.) Here, there was evidence, however slight, to support a finding of each element for a prosecution under section 273.5, including current or former cohabitation. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting the prosecution's midtrial request to amend count 2.

3. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Conviction on Count 2