Tag Archives: Standard of review

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case: 000144

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on simple battery as a lesser included offense of the sexual battery count. Thus, we reverse the misdemeanor sexual-battery conviction and remand for the People to elect whether to retry that charge or accept a modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction of simple battery. In either case, the defendant shall be fully resentenced.

First Holding:

The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on all lesser included offenses if there is substantial evidence from which a jury can reasonably conclude the defendant committed the lesser, uncharged offense, but not the greater. Thus, even though the defendant did not request an instruction on simple battery below, the claim is preserved for appeal.

Authority:

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29, 33, fn. 6

Second Holding:

We review de novo whether a trial court erred by not instructing on a lesser included offense, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to determine whether substantial evidence supported the instruction.

Authority:

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 30

Third Holding:

It is a crime to touch an intimate part of another person, if the touching is done against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Simple battery is defined as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. The least touching may constitute battery, and a touching is unlawful if it is harmful or offensive. It is undisputed that simple battery is a lesser included offense of sexual battery. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, we conclude that there was substantial evidence on which a reasonable juror could have relied to determine that he committed simple battery only.

Authority:

PEN 243.4(e)(1)

PEN 242

People v. Shockley (2013) 58 Cal.4th 400, 404

People v. Yonko (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1010

Fourth Holding:

Generally, a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense supported by substantial evidence is state law error that requires reversal if a different result was reasonably probable under Watson. A reasonable juror could have believed everything the victim said said but still harbored a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s purpose in touching her was sexual. The prejudice stemming from such an error is the risk that the jury ignored its instructions and convicted the defendant of an offense for which the prosecution did not carry its burden. The jury might have been convinced that the defendant was guilty of some lesser included offense and, as a result, been tempted to convict of a greater offense rather than acquit. Nor did the jury make any other findings establishing that it necessarily concluded the defendant had such a purpose. Particularly given that the jury was willing to convict him of lesser included offenses on other counts, we perceive nothing in the record dispelling the risk that because it was not instructed on simple battery, it convicted him of sexual battery rather than acquitting him.

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818

People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 196, 200, 201

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 260

Fifth Holding:

The People must elect whether to retry that charge or accept a modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction of simple battery. In either case, the defendant shall be fully resentenced.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000132

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We shall reduce one conviction to reflect a lesser included offense, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1103

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

Second Holding:

In considering the substantiality of generic testimony regarding multiple indistinguishable instances of child sexual abuse, a victim of child molestation need not specify precisely the date, time, or circumstances of each crime. Rather, the victim must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g., lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, a requirement that can be met with such testimony as “twice a month” or “every time we went camping.”

Authority:

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299–300, 315–316

Third Holding:

The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1015 that duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution that causes a reasonable person to do or submit to something that he or she would not otherwise do or submit to, and that in making its determination the jury should consider all the circumstances, including the age of the other person and his relationship to the defendant.

As to fear, the jury was told, “[a]n act is accomplished by fear if the other person is actually and reasonably afraid.” The existence of duress is an objective inquiry, and it is not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.

We consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator physically controlled the victim when the victim attempted to resist, and the relative physical vulnerability of the victim. Duress may arise in a variety of ways related to psychological and/or situational factors between the perpetrator and victim, including an uneven power dynamic between a victim and perpetrator inhabiting a position of authority. Not all forms of coercion necessarily constitute duress, however.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246

People v. Guenther (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 483, 518 [courts apply reasonable person standard to inquiry into duress]

People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072–1073

People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, 47

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321

Fourth Holding:

A variance between the crime charged and proved is not material unless it is of such a substantive character as to mislead the accused in preparing his defense, or is likely to place him in second jeopardy for the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 960 [No accusatory pleading is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits]

People v. Williams (1945) 27 Cal.2d 220, 226

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

Fifth Holding:

A lesser offense is necessarily included in a charged offense if one of two tests is met: either all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense (the “elements test”) or the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed (the “accusatory pleading test”). We do not consider the evidence presented at trial to determine whether one offense is necessarily included in the other.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288–289

People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 698

Sixth Holding:

Despite the constitutional prohibition of a second trial if a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321–1322, 1324 [reducing conviction to reflect lesser included offense where there was no evidence defendant used direct or implied threat to commit a lewd act]

Seventh Holding:

We review a court’s award of restitution to a victim for abuse of discretion, reversing only if it is arbitrary or capricious. An abuse of discretion exists when there is no rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000131

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[GARY NOTE: No relief was granted, because the errors were all found to be harmless in light of the rest of the evidence. The gold here rests in the relative clarity in which the principles of implied malice were set out by the court.] The trial court instructed the jury incorrectly on implied malice and aiding and abetting implied malice murder. However, we find the error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. If anything, the defect in CALCRIM No. 401 only made it harder for the jury to find defendant guilty. It would have been easier for the jury to find that defendant knew that the co-defendants intended to commit a life-endangering act than to find defendant knew they intended to commit murder, a life-ending act.

First Holding:

Implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less. Implied malice contains an objective or physical component and a subjective or mental component.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, 106

Second Holding:

To be liable for an implied malice murder, a direct aider and abettor must aid the perpetrator in committing a life endangering act that proximately causes death.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713

Third Holding:

Instructions regarding the elements of the crime affect the substantial rights of the defendant, thus requiring no objection for appellate review.

Authority:

People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503

Fourth Holding:

Defendant’s jury was incorrectly instructed under CALCRIM No. 401 to determine whether defendant aided and abetted the perpetrators’ commission of a crime, not an act. Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689,

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122

Fifth Holding:

The instruction given was thus an erroneous aiding and abetting instruction for purposes of this case. We review the error under the Chapman harmless error standard.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714-715

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000130

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following remand from the defendant’s prior appeal, the trial court declined to strike a firearm enhancement. The court did not realize the impact of recent changes in the law on gang criminal activity, asserting that its jurisdiction was limited to the scope defined in the remittitur (which remanded for reconsideration of the request to dismiss the firearm enhancement). We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385 under the standard more recently articulated by the Supreme Court.

First Holding:

The scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws. We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo. Whether a statute applies retroactively is a question of statutory construction we review de novo. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033

Second Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the nine mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024

Fourth Holding:

The Legislature amended PC 186.22(g) to redefine the phrase “benefit, promote, further, or assist” a criminal street gang for the purposes of section 186.22. The phrase now means “to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational.” Those elemental changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases such as this one.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

Fifth Holding:

Where a statute is silent regarding retroactivity, we employ the ordinary presumptions and rules of statutory construction to discern the Legislature’s intent. Ordinarily, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively, unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. Estrada, however, held that an amendment to a statute that lessened punishment for a crime gave rise to an inference of contrary legislative intent; that is, that the Legislature must have intended that the amendment mitigating punishment would apply retroactively to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The Estrada rule rests on an inference that the Legislature intends an amendment reducing punishment under a criminal statute to apply as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Authority:

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 230

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 308

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. In that event, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42

Seventh Holding:

Penal Code section 1016.7 provides that, in the interest of justice and to reach a just resolution during plea negotiations, the prosecutor shall consider whether the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, whether the defendant is or was a youth at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether any of those considerations contributed to the commission of an alleged offense. The statute defines youth as any person under 26 years of age on the date of the offense. But it is not retroactive. It does not reduce punishment for a criminal offense, create discretion to reduce punishment, narrow the scope of criminal liability, or create a concrete avenue for certain individuals charged with a criminal offense to be treated more leniently or avoid punishment altogether.

Authority:

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 13

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000128

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find that the nature of the required program is impermissibly vague in the condition of probation that the defendant “enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation program as directed by the probation officer or as specifically ordered as a term of probation, and shall not leave or terminate such programs without the permission of the probation officer.”

First Holding:

Applying de novo review, we address each challenge to a probation condition separately.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Second Holding:

It is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer. Although a probation condition need not be set forth with mathematical certainty, the language used must have reasonable specificity. Here, such specificity is lacking. The program choices for the probation officer are open-ended, ranging from education to psychological and psychiatric to drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation. This is too vague to pass muster, and we cannot interpret it more narrowly in light of other probation conditions, the probation report, or the trial court’s commentary. Without meaningful guidance from the record, the open-ended program condition cannot be saved by permitting the probation department to provide the necessary specificity.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358

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

Case: 000123

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found true that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of those counts. We conclude the injury to the victim in count 2, which the emergency room doctor described as a “superficial laceration,” is not sufficient to support the enhancement under section 12022.7(a). Consequently, we reverse the true finding, strike the one year imposed under section 12022.7(a), associated with count 2, and remand for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion anew with the changed circumstance.

First Holding:

Great bodily injury is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.

Authority:

People v. Wyatt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 694, 702

People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357, 361 [noting that great bodily injury is significant or substantial physical injury that is more than minor or moderate]

People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735–736 [evidence of superficial lacerations held not sufficient to prove great bodily injury]

Second Holding:

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s true finding on a section 12022.7(a) enhancement under the same standard that applies to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we 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 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

Third Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing after the reversal of one or more subordinate counts of a felony conviction, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000113

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition of probation that prohibits the defendant from “frequenting] any area where gang members are known by him/her to congregate, or areas known by him/her for gang related activity” is overbroad and can be more narrowly tailored by allowing the defendant’s probation officer to specify the areas involving gang-related activity. Accordingly, we modify the condition of probation to read that the defendant “shall not associate with any person known to him/her as a gang member and shall not frequent any areas specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity, subject to reasonable exceptions to accommodate family, work, and educational needs as determined by his probation officer.”

First Holding:

The court’s discretion of the court to impose conditions of probation is not boundless. The authority is wholly statutory, and the statute furnishes and limits the measure of authority which the court may exercise. A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Second Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Third Holding:

As to the third prong of Lent, courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. But the third prong “contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [relying on information in probation report for gang-related condition]

Fourth Holding:

Probation is a privilege and not a right, and adult probationers, in preference to incarceration, validly may consent to limitations upon their constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384

Fifth Holding:

A probation condition that infringes a constitutional right is permissible if necessary to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety. However, a probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1281

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62-63

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153

Sixth Holding:

In Victor L., the defendant challenged for overbreadth and vagueness a condition of probation ordering him to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. The court distinguished between probation restrictions encompassing areas known for gang related crimes (which other courts had upheld against constitutional challenges) from restrictions involving gang-related activity. Noting the word ‘activity’ is one of surpassing breadth that could banish the defendant from the area in which he lived, worked, or went to school, Victor L. determined that an individualized list of stay away areas, together with any exceptions necessary to reasonably accommodate the defendant’s legitimate work and educational needs was required. Victor L. reasoned a probation officer, rather than the trial court, was in a better position to identify the forbidden areas for each defendant, using either geographic or activity-based limits. Victor L. modified the condition to prohibit the defendant’s presence in areas known by him for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity). Other courts have imposed similar gang-area restrictions.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913-918, 931-932

People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 754-760 [affirming condition that stated that the defendant was not to visit or remain in any specific location which he knows to be or which the probation officer informs him to be an area of criminal street gang-related activity]

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [It would be altogether preferable to name the actual geographic area that would be prohibited to the minor and then to except from that certain kinds of travel, that is, to school or to work]

Defenses, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000109

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was charged with first degree murder under two theories–deliberation and premeditation, and lying in wait. The jury was not required to agree unanimously on the theory. He was convicted of first degree murder, along with a count of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation. We conclude that insufficient evidence supports the finding of lying in wait. One of the elements of lying in wait, namely, “a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act,” is not supported by substantial evidence. That conclusion requires us to reverse the finding on the lying-in-wait special circumstance, but it does not require a reversal of the first degree murder convictions, as they are supported by the alternative theory of premeditation and deliberation.

First Holding:

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires an intentional murder, committed under circumstances that include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage It includes the elements of first degree lying-in-wait murder but requires the additional element that the killing was intentional, not merely committed with implied malice.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(15)

People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 74

Second Holding:

To support a finding of concealment of purpose, it is not required that a defendant be literally concealed from view before he attacks the victim. Rather, it is sufficient that a defendant’s true intent and purpose were concealed by his actions or conduct. The concealment, in that sense, is that which puts the defendant in a position of advantage, from which the factfinder can infer that lying-in-wait was part of the defendant’s plan to take the victim by surprise. Concealment of purpose inhibits detection, defeats self-defense, and may betray at least some level of trust, making it more blameworthy than premeditated murder that does not involve surprise.

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires no fixed, quantitative minimum time, but the lying in wait must continue for long enough to premeditate and deliberate, conceal one’s purpose, and wait and watch for an opportune moment to attack. To distinguish the circumstance from ordinary premeditation and deliberation, a distinct period of watchful waiting is required. “Watchful” does not require actual watching; it can include being alert and vigilant in anticipation of the victim’s arrival to take him or her by surprise.

Authority:

People v. Barrett (2025) 17 Cal.5th 897, 966–967

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 67

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 204

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 629

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 551

People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 247

Third Holding:

In assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we 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 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies when examining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a special circumstance finding. “Substantial evidence” includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

Fourth Holding:

A first degree murder verdict will be upheld if there is sufficient evidence as to at least one of the theories on which the jury is instructed, absent an affirmative indication in the record that the verdict actually did rest on the inadequate ground. The appellate court should affirm the judgment unless a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory. In making that determination, we examine the entire record, including the facts and the instructions, the arguments of counsel, any communications from the jury during deliberations, and the entire verdict.

The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. Thus, our inquiry is whether there is a reasonable probability that the jury returned a verdict of first degree murder based solely on lying in wait, rather than also on premeditation and deliberation. The jury’s express findings in connection with the attempted murder in count 2 preclude any reasonable probability the jury relied solely on lying in wait as the theory for first degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 552 [affirming first degree murder based on sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation despite insufficient evidence to support lying in wait]

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130

Fifth Holding:

The court committed harmless error under Chapman in declining the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense. Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense. if a person kills in the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense, the belief negates what would otherwise be malice, and that person is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561

People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 461

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was required to instruct on imperfect self-defense if there was substantial evidence to support the theory. “Substantial evidence” is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter was committed, but does not include evidence that is speculative, minimal, or insubstantial.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 253

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s decision not to give an imperfect self-defense instruction. When the record contains substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense, the trial court’s failure to instruct on that theory amounts to constitutional error and is thus subject to review under the federal Chapman standard. Under the Chapman standard, reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Though there was insufficient evidence of the watchful waiting to support a finding of lying in wait, the jury returned a finding that the murder was committed by lying in wait.

There was sufficient evidence of the aspects of lying in wait other than watchful waiting. Because of its true finding on lying in wait, the jury could not have found an imperfect self-defense in which the defendant used deadly force against the victim because he unreasonably believed that doing so was necessary to defend himself.

Authority:

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 665 [a jury’s true finding on a lying-in-wait special circumstance negated any possibility that defendant was prejudiced from the failure to instruct on unreasonable self-defense theories of manslaughter]

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

Case: 000107

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals his conviction of violating Penal Code section 422. We reverse the judgment because there was no substantial evidence that the victim of the crime experienced sustained fear.

First Holding:

Elements of section 422 include: that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, and that the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 422(a)

People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227–228

Second Holding:

Sustained fear must occur over a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory. Ordinarily, sustained fear lasts beyond the moments of the encounter.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1140

Third Holding:

Courts have held that 15 minutes satisfies the sustained fear requirement.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 201

People v. Allen (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156

Fourth Holding:

Under circumstances not applicable here a shorter duration of fear, or fear confined to the length of the encounter, may be sufficient. A victim may experience sustained fear even though the fear exists only during the incident itself. In Brugman, the incident was a drawn-out ordeal. Similarly, if the circumstances are extreme enough—such as when a person believes they will be killed imminently—even one minute can be enough time for fear to be sustained.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 634

People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349

Fifth Holding:

In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we 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 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Reasonableness is the ultimate standard under the substantial evidence rule.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000104

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under section 654, the trial court should have stayed the sentence imposed on either of two counts, each of which was based on the same assault and committed with the same intent and objective.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment under more than one provision for any act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law. This section applies not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct which violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 309

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant possessed a single intent and objective is a factual question subject to substantial evidence review on appeal. However, where the facts are undisputed, whether Penal Code section 654 precludes multiple punishment is a legal question, subject to de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552, fn. 5

People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1603

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 493

People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1547, 1552, 1560 [multiple punishment precluded where mayhem and assault convictions were based on a course of conduct in which the defendant threw the victim down, punched her, took a box cutter that she tried to use to defend herself, and used the weapon to slash the victim]

Third Holding:

A course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639, fn. 11

People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1253