Tag Archives: Standard of review

Evidence, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000059

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find there is insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions for sexual penetration. We find no other errors. Thus, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27

Second Holding:

In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Fourth Holding:

Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case 000045

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the minor contends that the electronics search conditions should be stricken as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 or, at a minimum, modified as unconstitutionally overbroad. He also maintains that the association condition should be modified due to its overbreadth. We find the electronics search conditions reasonable under Lent, but we accept the People’s concession that they are unconstitutionally overbroad. We see no constitutional infirmity in the association condition. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court to strike or modify the electronics search condition. Remanded to modify terms 9 and 16

First Holding:

Under Lent, 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. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. We find dispositive the first element of Lent’s test, which asks whether the probation condition has no relationship to the conviction. Here, the record supports an implied finding that there was a relationship between the offense and minor’s use of an electronic device and the internet.

Authority:

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

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945

Second Holding:

The failure to object to a probation condition as unreasonable under Lent generally forfeits the contention on appeal. Only facial constitutional challenges to a probation condition that are capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record are exempt from the general forfeiture rule.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235, 237

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887

Third Holding:

The court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to consider the merits of both his Lent and constitutional claims in light of the People’s concession and the minor’s alternative contention that his trial counsel’s failure to make an adequate objection constituted ineffective assistance.

Authority:

People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854 [considering issues not raised in trial court to forestall later claim of constitutionally inadequate representation]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts may reach unpreserved questions]

Fourth Holding:

In applying the Lent test, we review the conditions imposed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62, 64

Fifth Holding:

We review constitutional overbreadth questions de novo

Authority:

In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 297

Sixth Holding:

The electronic search conditions here were overly broad.

Authority:

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355 [If a probation condition serves to rehabilitate and protect public safety, the condition may impinge upon a constitutional right otherwise enjoyed by the probationer, who is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.]

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

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

Duty of the court, Fifth Amendment, Jury instructions, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000037

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense as to the attempted murder of defendant’s wife. We reverse the judgment on that count and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial. We also conclude the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during the questioning of the witnesses and closing argument, warranting reversal of the judgment as to all counts.

First Holding:

A trial court’s decision not to instruct on imperfect self-defense or defense of others is reviewed de novo.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The trial court has an independent obligation to instruct the jury on all lesser included offenses the evidence warrants, even against the defense’s wishes. Such instructions are required when, but only when, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater one.

Authority:

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 98

Third Holding:

In assessing whether substantial evidence exists in this context, a court determines only its bare legal sufficiency, not its weight.

Authority:

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 161 [disapproved on another ground in People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 254-260]

Fourth Holding:

Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Doubts about whether an instruction is warranted should be resolved in favor of the accused.

Authority:

People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 944

Sixth Holding:

Advising examining counsel to simply “move on “ is not a ruling. Such inaction runs the risk of confusing the jury and emboldening the objectionable conduct, and leaves the appellate court with an incomplete record.

Authority:

Reid v. Google (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 524, 532

Seventh Holding:

[Gary’s short description of an extensive discussion in the opinion:] There was extensive discussion regarding improper comment by the prosecution on the defendant’s post-arrest exercise of his right to remain silent. Under Doyle, in essence, the prosecution may not comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. Doyle has also been broadly interpreted to apply to any testimony about a defendant’s desire or request for counsel.

Authority:

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609

Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610

People v. Galloway (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 551 [The Doyle rule is not limited to a defendant’s failure to talk with police. It applies to questions such as “No one? You told no one?” not just to silence to police officers after receiving Miranda warnings]

People v. Fabert (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 604, 609

People v. Bryant Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 387

Eighth Holding:

The prosecutor may neither comment, directly or indirectly, on a defendant’s failure to testify or urge the jury to infer guilt from such silence. Griffin/Doyle error requires reversal unless the court can conclude it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court must determine, absent the prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s failure to testify, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty.

Authority:

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609

People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 153–154

United States v. Hasting (1983) 461 U.S. 499, 507–509

Ninth Holding:

Indirect, brief and mild references to a defendant’s failure to testify, without any suggestion that an inference of guilt be drawn therefrom, are uniformly held to constitute harmless error. But the error is prejudicial if the evidence against defendant is less than overwhelming and the improper comment touched a live nerve in the appellant’s defense. It is prejudicial if it served to fill an evidentiary gap in the prosecution’s case. The appellate court must determine whether the comment actually or implicitly invited the jury to infer guilt from silence.

Authority:

People v. Hovey (1988) 44 Cal.3d 543, 572

People v. Galloway (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 551, 560

People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 463

People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 159

Tenth Holding:

The harmful impact of a Doyle error has been ameliorated in some cases when the trial court gave a strong curative instruction.

Authority:

People v. Galloway (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 551, 560

Eleventh Holding:

Griffin prohibits the prosecution from so much as suggesting to the jury that it may view the defendant’s [silence] as evidence of guilt.

Authority:

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609

People v. Guzman (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1287

People v. Lindsey (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 112, 116–117 [error to suggest to jury that there was no reason defense counsel would have let the defendant sit in jail if counsel had exculpatory evidence to present]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions regarding association with minors, completion of a sex offender treatment program, polygraph examinations, possession of pornography, electronic search, and electronic monitoring. We conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them

First Holding:

Regarding the conditions of probation. we conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

Second Holding:

A probation condition is valid under the statutory scheme if it relates to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, relates to other criminal conduct, or requires or forbids conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 498

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

Third Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three factors must be found in order to invalidate a probation condition.

Authority:

People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3

Fourth Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion only when the probation conditions imposed are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the bounds of reason.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234

Fifth Holding:

Even valid probation conditions must not be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Vagueness considers whether a condition is sufficiently precise to give the probationer fair warning of what conduct is required or prohibited; overbreadth considers the closeness of fit between the state’s interest in reformation and rehabilitation and the burden imposed on the [probationer’s] constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Rhinehart (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1126-1127

In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 260

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

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition must be sufficiently definite for the probationer to know what conduct is required or prohibited, and to allow the court to determine when that condition has been violated.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition also must be closely tailored to its legitimate objective to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946

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

People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102 [such conditions must be narrowly drawn]

Eighth Holding:

We review de novo constitutional challenges to probation conditions.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000024

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY note: The winning issue was relatively simple, but in affirming the overall conviction, the court shared several principles I thought worthy of reporting, even though many did not bear on the dual use of enhancements.

For the attempted murder of the victim in count 3, the trial court should have stayed the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7 because it also imposed a term of 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), for personally and proximately causing great bodily injury with a firearm. We will modify the judgment so that it accords with the law.

First Holding:

Where multiple prison terms are improperly imposed as in this case, the reviewing court may modify the sentence to stay imposition of the sentence

Authority:

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Second Holding:

It is improper to impose the enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 in addition to enhancement under section 12022.53(d), and it must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 941, 949

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Third Holding:

If an error violates a defendant’s federal constitutional rights, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2011) 51 Cal.4th 733, 745

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

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 615

People v. Concha (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1087

Fourth Holding:

A harmless error analysis may include consideration of implausible defense testimony and closing argument to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 195

People v. Zambrano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 228, 243

People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 881

Fifth Holding:

With respect to errors alleged regarding the conviction of the murder, the error can be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even under the Chapman standard, as the court concludes in this instance.

Authority:

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 983-984

People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 755

Wright v. West (1992) 505 U.S. 277, 296

Hanrahan v. Thieret (7th Cir. 1991) 933 F.2d 1328, 1340

Phelps v. Duckworth (7th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1410, 1413-1414

Sixth Holding:

The standard of review on sufficiency of evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Eighth Holding:

A conviction for attempted murder requires proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim and proof of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing that goal. But a finding of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation requires more than a showing of an intent to kill.

Authority:

People v. Medina (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 146, 153

People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282

Ninth Holding:

When reviewing a claim the trial court erred in denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal (sec. 1118.1) that was made at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the appellate court considers the evidence as it stood at that point,

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212-1213

Tenth Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error based on the appellate record and with meaningful legal analysis with adequate citation to the record.

Authority:

People v. Dauterman (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 603, 609

Eleventh Holding:

Arguments not raised below are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1022-1023

Twelfth Holding:

The court conducts de novo review to detemine if jury miscontrued or misapplied the law.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 833, 838

Thirteenth Holding:

Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under other properly given instructions.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646

Fourteenth Holding:

Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected.

Authority:

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