Tag Archives: Standard of review

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

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000101

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2022, defendant was resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.75 and the trial court struck seven years from his determinate term. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion under section 1385 when declining to further reduce defendant’s sentence because the court found he currently posed a danger to public safety. We agree and accordingly vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

The court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.” Section 1385(c)(2) provides: “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 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. ‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision not to strike an enhancement under section 1385 for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court, for example, is unaware of its discretion, fails to consider a relevant factor that deserves significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or impermissible factor, or makes a decision so arbitrary or irrational that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215

Third Holding:

The trial court abused its discretion because the plain words of section 1385 do not support the trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger and instead focuses on the danger associated with the dismissal of an enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228-229

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether resentencing a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society is necessarily a forward-looking inquiry. When determining whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger, the trial court must look to when a defendant would be released if the petition is granted and the defendant is resentenced. A defendant who would obtain immediate release if the petition is granted poses a different potential danger to society than a defendant who could be released only in his or her 70s.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1063