People v. Atkins
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Randall Patrick Atkins was charged with Penal Code § 69 (two theories: attempting to deter an executive officer by threats/violence; knowingly resisting an officer by force), § 148(a), and § 626.10(b). Jury convicted on § 69 and § 148(a), acquitted on § 626.10(b).
- Facts central to § 69 charge: UC Santa Cruz officer Calhoun (in uniform, marked patrol car) detained skateboarders; Atkins returned, took a skateboard, ignored commands, broke free from an initial grab, got into his truck, threatened to run Calhoun over, and later physically resisted arrest.
- Trial instruction: court gave separate CALCRIM-style instructions for the two § 69 theories. For the first (attempt-to-deter) the jury was not instructed that Atkins must know the person threatened was an executive officer; for the second (resisting) the instruction expressly required the defendant to know the officer was performing duty.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether intent required belief that Calhoun was an executive officer; the court answered in writing that there was no such requirement. No objections were made to the instructions or the written answer at trial.
- On appeal Atkins argued the court erred by failing to instruct that the first theory requires knowledge that the target was an executive officer (and that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting). The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory construction and found instructional error prejudicial, reversed the § 69 conviction, vacated sentence, and remanded for possible retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Atkins) | Defendant's Argument (Attorney General) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "attempting to deter" clause of § 69 requires proof that defendant knew the person targeted was an executive officer | Jury must be instructed that defendant actually knew (or reasonably should have known) the person was an executive officer | Statute text omits "knowingly" for the first clause; no knowledge element is required; trial waived any challenge | The court held the first theory requires actual knowledge that the person was an executive officer (but not a "reasonably should have known" standard) |
| Whether the trial court erred by answering the jury that belief the target was an officer is not required | Court omitted an essential element; answer was legally incorrect and forfeiture does not bar review for omission of an element | No contemporaneous objection; claim waived as to initial instruction but not as to supplemental answer | The court held the written answer misstated law, so appellate review of the supplemental instruction is permitted and error occurred |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Error was prejudicial because Atkins repeatedly testified he did not believe Calhoun was a cop and prosecutor argued first theory did not require knowledge; jury asked specifically about that element | Any error harmless because evidence supports conviction under the correct second theory (knowingly resisting) and Atkins’s testimony was not credible | Error not harmless under Chapman/Neder because the jury was instructed on two theories (one legally incorrect) and the record does not show the verdict rested solely on the valid theory; reversal required |
| Whether Atkins's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the supplemental instruction | Failure to object was ineffective assistance and prejudiced Atkins | No legal basis to object; even if counsel erred, no prejudice because evidence supports conviction | Court did not reach the ineffective assistance claim because reversal was required on instructional error; preserved but unnecessary to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (describing § 69 as two separate ways to offend and analyzing elements)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (limiting "threat" to threats of unlawful violence; statute aims to prohibit use of threats/violence to interfere with executive action)
- People v. Hendrix, 214 Cal.App.4th 216 (discussing knowledge element for resisting prong of § 69)
- People v. Mil, 53 Cal.4th 400 (no objection required to preserve claim that instruction omitted an essential element)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error standard for omitted elements; Chapman review)