Error and/or relief
Though the defendant was convicted of section 243.4(a), the correct code section for the pleaded and proved crime was section 243.4(d), and we modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
(Gary note: I stretch to count this as a win, because it did not really provide any relief. But it contains some important principles on what happens when the allegation describes conduct but lists the incorrect code section for it. So I decided to include it. Yep. My bar for inclusion is very low.)
First Holding:
Adequate notice to the defendant of the offense with which he is charged is not determined solely by the charging statute. A reference to an incorrect penal statute can be overcome by factual allegations adequate to inform the defendant of the crime charged.
The defendant was amply acquainted with the basis for count 3 and argues no prejudice from being charged under the wrong subdivision of section 243.4. The victim testified to the conduct underlying count 3 at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. There is no dispute the evidence supports a conviction under subdivision (d).
Authority:
People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439
People v. Thomas (1987) 43 Cal.3d 818, 826–827, 832
People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 427–428
(Gary note: the court did not cite it, but section 1260 provides that the appellate court may modify a judgment, among several other actions. While it does not specifically say that the court can modify the judgment by having it reflect a different code section than was alleged, the above cases make it clear that specification of a code section does not necessarily control whether the defendant has been placed on adequate notice of the conduct he is accused of.)
Second Holding:
We review de novo whether the trial court’s instructions on the law were correct. When instructions are claimed to be erroneous, conflicting, or ambiguous, we ask whether jurors were reasonably likely to have construed them in a manner that violates the defendant’s rights. We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel.
We assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions given. Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.
Authority:
People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088
People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028
People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 873
People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 720
Third Holding:
The defendant argues the trial evidence does not support the conclusion that the victim was particularly vulnerable. We review an aggravating factor finding for substantial evidence. The court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
Authority:
People v. Mendez-Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020
People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806
People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 195 [inability to speak English can be a factor suggesting particular vulnerability]
People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 413 [noting vulnerability from victim being alone]
People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 638 [noting vulnerability from victim being told a false story to get the victim into a private space]
People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 203 [noting a vulnerable position arises from exploiting a false sense of security]