Error and/or relief
It was error for the court to instruct that the jury could find the maul to be a deadly under either of two theories–(a) that it was inherently deadly or dangerous or (b) that it was used in such a way that it was capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
First Holding:
Some few objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law; the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.
Authority:
People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6
Second Holding:
Add holding The trial court instructed the jury, pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3145, that if the jury found the defendant guilty of count three—vandalism—it must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that the defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon.
The instruction defined a deadly or dangerous weapon as any object, instrument, or weapon that is inherently deadly or dangerous or one that is used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury. It went on to explain that an object is inherently deadly if it is deadly or dangerous in the ordinary use for which it was designed.
The court further instructed the jury to consider all the surrounding circumstances in determining whether the object constituted a deadly or dangerous weapon.
here
Authority:
CALCRIM no. 3145
Third Holding:
For assault with a deadly weapon our high court has defined a weapon that is not inherently deadly as deadly nonetheless, when it is used in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury. CALCRIM No. 3145 has, in turn, adopted the same definition in defining a deadly or dangerous weapon under section 12022.
Authority:
People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1029
People v. Stutelberg (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 314, 317
Fourth Holding:
Whether a weapon is deadly or dangerous as used focuses on potentiality and not on an actual injury to a victim, or even physical contact. Although a mere possibility of serious injury is not enough, the question is whether serious injury was likely, even if it did not come to pass. This necessarily calls for an assessment of potential harm in light of the evidence.
Authority:
In re D.T. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 693, 698
In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 535
Fifth Holding:
The court committed alternative theory error by presenting the jury with two theories by which it could find the maul a deadly weapon: (1) inherently or (2) as used. The first theory (inherently) is incorrect, but the second theory (as used) is correct.
Authority:
People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 7
Sixth Holding:
The error was factual and is subject to review under Watson. Under the Watson standard, reversal is required if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. A “probability” in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.
In making this evaluation, we may consider, among other things, whether the evidence supporting the existing judgment is so relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the defendant complains affected the result.
Authority:
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715
People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 177, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237
Seventh Holding:
The prosecutor repeatedly argued during closing that a maul was an inherently dangerous weapon. Indeed, during rebuttal, the prosecutor emphasized that the maul was an inherently dangerous weapon, like a firearm, and that in just its simple design, it is deadly and dangerous.
Given the relative weakness of the evidence that the defendant used the maul in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury and the prosecutor’s emphasis on the inherently deadly nature of the maul, there is a reasonable chance that at least one juror could have found the enhancement true under an inherently deadly theory. We therefore reverse the deadly or dangerous weapon enhancement.
Authority:
In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1226–1227 [prejudice found where the prosecutor argued a legally invalid theory during closing arguments]
(Compare with) People v. Stutelberg (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 314, 322 [finding no prejudice because the prosecutor did not expressly refer to the inherently deadly weapon theory and did not invite the jury to classify the box cutter as inherently deadly]