Daily Archives: August 15, 2026

Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000393

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the open beer can in this case was a deadly weapon. The conviction for assault with a deadly weapon is reversed.

First Holding:

We review a claim of insufficient evidence under the substantial evidence standard of review. The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact; it is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. It must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Authority:

In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1372

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87

People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453

Second Holding:

Objects may be deadly weapons as a matter of law, such as dirks and blackjacks, because the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such. On the other hand, pocket knives, canes, hammers and hatchets are not deemed deadly weapons per se.

Authority:

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1029

People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 327, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Ray (1970) 14 Cal.3d 20

Third Holding:

Objects may be determined to be deadly weapons when used in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. “Likely” means a high probability of occurring with a great probability of serious injury. Rolls of coins, batteries, and bicycle footrests have been determined to be deadly weapons when used in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. No injury or even physical contact is required to support a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon because the focus is on the use of the weapon in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury.

Authority:

In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 533 [the manner of use must by capable of and likely to produce death or great bodily injury – two different concepts]

In re David V. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 23, 30 and fn. 5

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028

Fourth Holding:

The use of an object in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury requires more than a mere possibility that serious injury could have resulted from the way the object was used. Conjecture as to how the object could have been used is not permitted in the analysis. Rather, the determination of whether an object is a deadly weapon under section 245(a)(1) must rest on evidence of how the defendant actually used the object.

Authority:

In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 534

Fifth Holding:

If injury does occur, such injuries and their location are relevant in determining whether the object was used in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury. Great bodily injury means significant or substantial injury. Insignificant, trivial or moderate injury is not significant or substantial. Our inquiry is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the defendant used the open beer can as a deadly weapon, that is, in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury.

On this record, the defendant’s use of the beer can, tossed from six feet away in a slight overhand manner or with a slinging or flicking motion was not likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. The victim did not sustain great bodily injury, significant or substantial injury, or even anything greater than minor or moderate harm. There was little or no objective description of the can or its weight, and it was not introduced into evidence. There was no evidence of sharp or jagged edges on the can, other data points that would have been relevant to determining the likelihood of producing great bodily injury.

Without more details, it is speculation that the open beer can, used as it was, was capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. Perhaps the beer can, if wielded differently, may have been likely to cause great bodily injury, but our inquiry is limited to how the beer can was actually used.

Authority:

In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1497

People v. Brown (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1, 7

People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 464

In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 822–825

People v. Hahn (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 308, 309–310 [assault with a deadly weapon occurred when robbery victim driving a car was struck on the head four times with a beer can by passenger sitting behind him]

People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087, 1088 [bruises on arms and shoulders, without further injury, not great bodily injury]

In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1497 [small scratch on cheek not great bodily injury]

In re D.T. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 693, 696–697 [sharp pocketknife poked into the victim’s back likely to produce great bodily injury]

People v. Page (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1469, 1474 [sharp pencil held to the victim’s neck likely to produce great bodily injury]

People v. Duke (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 296, 303

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000392

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition seeking mental health diversion. We thus conditionally vacate defendant’s no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew the law and followed it. But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b)(1)(2) provides that a defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if (1) they present evidence that in the last five years they have been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and (2) their mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

If a defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements in section 1001.36(b), the court then must consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion based on the following criteria set forth in section 1001.36(c): (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the defendant’s criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

A diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. Legislative history confirms there is a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

Fifth Holding:

The record shows that the trial court’s ruling failed to apply the correct legal standards to defendant’s diversion request. After finding defendant eligible, the court denied him diversion because he was unsuitable based on the determination that he targeted vulnerable people. This ruling rests on a legal error because the court did not apply the four statutory suitability criteria found in section 1001.36(c). Additionally, denial of mental health diversion using a court’s residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.

Here, the trial court relied on its observation that defendant targeted vulnerable victims but failed to tie that observation to achieving the purposes of the statute, and the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. By applying the wrong legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

Authority:

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000391

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the proposed probation order would have imposed a search condition as to electronic devices, the trial court agreed to not impose that condition of probation. The written order of probation, however, had the condition checked. The matter is remanded for the trial court to modify the order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Holding:

In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between a written order and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000390

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury convicted the defendant of five counts of first degree murder and found true five multiple-murder special circumstances (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The trial court sentenced him to five consecutive state prison terms of life without parole for the murder counts. It was error to submit to the jury more than one multiple-murder special circumstance allegation of multiple murder, and four must be stricken. However, this does not affect the sentence because the trial court properly applied the special circumstance to impose life without parole for all five murder counts.

First Holding:

The jury should have found only one multiple-murder special circumstance rather than five.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(3)

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 678

People v. Garnica (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1563–1564

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Pleading, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000389

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Consolidation and cross-admission of unrelated charges was improper and prejudicial under the circumstances of this case, and we will therefore reverse the judgment for possible retrial. Due to insufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt under certain murder theories presented to the jury, we will bar the prosecution from pursuing those theories in any retrial.

First Holding:

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence to support the judgment. To overturn a jury’s finding, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Second Holding:

First degree willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder must be committed with express malice—i.e., willfully. The remaining elements of premeditation and deliberation are generally established through the following types of evidence: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing—what may be characterized as planning activity; (2) facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a motive to kill the victim, and (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design to take his victim’s life in a particular way for a reason which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2).

The evidence of premeditation and deliberation is generally sufficient when there is evidence of all three types or at least extremely strong evidence of (1) or evidence of (2) in conjunction with either (1) or (3). These factors discussed in Anderson, while helpful for purposes of review, are not a sine qua non to finding first degree premeditated murder, nor are they exclusive.

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(1)

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 662

People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26–27

People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125

Third Holding:

Where, as here, offenses in separate cases meet a statutory basis for consolidation, a defendant bears the burden to make a clear showing of prejudice to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the cases. In our review, we examine the record before the trial court when it denied defendant’s severance motion and consider: (1) the cross-admissibility of the evidence in separate trials; (2) whether some of the charges are likely to unusually inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) whether a weak case has been joined with a strong case or another weak case so that the total evidence may alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) whether one of the charges is a capital offense, or the joinder of the charges converts the matter into a capital case.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 160-161

Fourth Holding:

We first address the charges’ cross-admissibility, because a finding of cross-admissibility generally negates the possibility of prejudice. Evidence of other crimes can be admitted to prove the offender acted according to a certain plan, or acted with a particular motive, if a degree of similarity exists between the past and present crimes so as to permit a reasonable inference that the offender must have entertained the same intent in both instances

Authority:

People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 38

People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 926

Fifth Holding:

There exists a hierarchy, or continuum, with respect to the degree of similarity that is needed for cross-admissibility, depending upon the purpose for which introduction of the evidence is sought. To be admissible to demonstrate a distinctive modus operandi, the evidence must disclose common marks or identifiers, that, considered singly or in combination, support a strong inference that the defendant committed the crimes. To be admissible to show intent, however, the prior conduct and the charged offense need only be sufficiently similar to support the inference that defendant probably harbored the same intent in each instance. To be cross-admissible to establish motive, the offenses need not necessarily be factually similar but must share a direct logical nexus.

Authority:

Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1222

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 392

People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 121

People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 15

People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1018 [the motive for the charged crime arises simply from the commission of the prior offense]

Sixth Holding:

Disputed identity is a factor to be considered in weighing the probative value of allegedly cross-admissible evidence of intent against the likelihood of undue prejudice due to its admission.

Authority:

People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 394, fn. 2

People v. Earle (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 372, 390–391

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1301–1303

People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 109 [to be admitted, evidence of other crimes must not contravene other policies limiting admission, such as those contained in Evidence Code section 352]