light most favorable to the prosecution. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho at 385, 957 P.2d at 1101; Knutson, 121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001. A. Care or Custody The injury to child statute does not define “care or custody.” Furthermore, Idaho case law has not defined these terms as they relate to the elements of the statute proscribing injury to child. In the absence of a statutory definition, we look to the ordinary meaning of the word and the context in which it is used. State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 161, 832 P.2d 331, 334 (Ct.App.1992). “Care” is defined as “Charge, Supervision, Management: responsibility for or attention to safety and well-being.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 338 (1993). See also People v. Culuko, 78 Cal.App.4th 307, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 808 (2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 937 P.2d 310,
holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision holding that there is no special meaning to the terms care and custody beyond the plain meaning of the terms themselves the terms care or custody do not imply a familial relationship but only a willingness to assume duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver  quoting people v cochran 62 calapp4th 826 73 calrptr2d 257 261 1998