Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding unlawful detention or unlawful arrest. The judgment is reversed. Because there was sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could have returned the same verdict, double jeopardy principles do not apply and the matter may be retried.
First Holding:
All criminal defendants have the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.
A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.
Similarly, if the trial court decides to provide supplemental instruction to the jury during deliberation, we review de novo the legal accuracy of any supplemental instructions provided.
Authority:
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824
People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579
People v. Parker (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1261, 1271
Second Holding:
Section 69 provides that every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment. Similarly, section 148(a)(1) prohibits resisting an officer in the performance of duty, though the resistance need not be forceful or violent.
Authority:
PEN 69
PEN 148
People v. Hupp (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 946, 950
In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 22
Third Holding:
The lawfulness of an officer’s conduct is an essential element of both offenses because there is no distinction between performing a duty and lawfully performing a duty, since an officer who is acting unlawfully cannot be said to be performing his or her duty. And the prosecution has the burden of proving the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct is an essential element upon which the trial court had a sua sponte duty to properly instruct the jury.
Authority:
In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 25
People v. Southard (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 424, 435
Fourth Holding:
To convict defendant of a violation of section 69 or 148, the prosecution was required to prove, and the jury was required to find, that officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. The pattern jury instructions include definitions for various scenarios in which an officer can be considered engaged in a lawful performance of duty, including during a detention, an arrest without a warrant, and an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. (CALCRIM 2670.)
However, the trial court did not give any of these definitions to the jury. Nor did the trial court offer its own definition for the jury to consider. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that it was required to find that the officers were engaged in a lawful performance of duty but provided no definitions or guidance to the jury regarding how to make this finding. This was clearly error.
Authority:
People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 913 [Where a term or phrase has a special definition for purposes of a statute, the failure to define it for the jury is error.]
People v. Reyes (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1601 [Failure to define terms essential to an element of an offense is “equivalent to the omission of an element from the definition of the crime given to the jury.]
Fifth Holding:
The question of reasonable or probable cause is ordinarily one for the court and, where there are disputed facts to be resolved by a jury, the jury is to be told that if it finds the facts in a designated way such facts do or do not amount to probable cause.
Authority:
Roberts v. City of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 629-630
Sixth Holding:
Whether an offense has been committed in an officer’s presence is determined by whether the officer could testify to actual knowledge to every element of the offense.
Authority:
People v. Garrison (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 549, 557
In re Alonzo C. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 707, 714
People v. Welsch (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1044
Seventh Holding:
When the jury is misinstructed on an element of the offense reversal is required unless we are able to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, a reviewing court must determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. Here, we cannot say with any confidence that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed in this case.
Authority:
People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 348
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831
Eighth Holding:
It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. However, a settled exception to this rule permitting retrial after a successful appeal occurs when a conviction has been reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence.
Thus, even where reversal is required based on instructional error, an appellant’s arguments regarding insufficiency of the evidence should be considered to determine whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles. The inquiry at this stage is to determine whether, if properly instructed, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852-853
People v. Wetle (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 375, 388
People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 608-609;
In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 [Where instructional error occurs, retrial is barred if defendant can show there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction even when the law is properly construed.]
Ninth Holding:
While an offense may be considered a “wobbler” punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, its status as a wobbler has no bearing on the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest. This is because the commission of a wobbler is a felony at the time it is committed and remains deemed a felony unless charged as a misdemeanor by the People or reduced to a misdemeanor by the sentencing court.
Authority:
People v. Moomey (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 850, 857-858
People v. Statum (2002) 28 Cal.4th 682, 685