People v. Brugman CA4/1
62 Cal.App.5th 608
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Michael Brugman was tried in two consolidated trials for separate victims (C. and A.) and convicted of multiple offenses including three counts of corporal injury (§ 273.5), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)), making a criminal threat (§ 422), rape of an unconscious person (§ 261(a)(4)), false imprisonment, and violations of protective orders; sentence totaled 25 years 8 months.
- With victim C.: prior July 14, 2016 facial assault; November 27, 2016 high-speed car pursuit and violent collision when C. tried to enter her apartment driveway; while cohabiting in early 2017 Brugman allegedly put a revolver (wrapped in a towel) to C.’s head, threatened to "smoke"/kill her, photographed/videoed her nude while she was unconscious (sex without consent).
- With victim A.: June–July 2017, while Brugman was on bail, he allegedly strangled, punched, detained A., searched her phone and coerced sex; jury convicted on corporal injury and false imprisonment (rape charge mistried and later dismissed).
- Defense sought a pinpoint jury instruction (based on People v. Williams/Colantuono) that "reckless conduct alone" is insufficient for assault; trial court refused. Brugman also challenged sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon and for the criminal threat, and sought to strike a prior strike and a five-year serious-felony enhancement.
- The Court of Appeal (4th Dist., Div. 1) affirmed: refused the pinpoint instruction as confusing/legally misleading; found substantial evidence supported the assault (vehicle used deliberately) and criminal-threat convictions (gun-to-head incident caused sustained fear); upheld denial of motions to strike priors under abuse-of-discretion standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Brugman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court erred by refusing defense pinpoint instruction on assault mental state | Pinpoint was unnecessary and risked confusing jury; CALCRIM 875 properly instructed assault elements | Requested instruction that "reckless conduct alone does not constitute assault" was required by Williams/Colantuono | Court: No error — refusal proper because wording would confuse or misstate law (Williams clarified historical meaning of "reckless") |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon (vehicle) | Video and witness testimony show deliberate high‑speed driving into C.’s car; reasonable person would foresee battery/collision; vehicle used in manner capable of causing great bodily injury | Argues video shows avoidance, not intentional ramming; no proof he willfully used car to cause battery | Court: Substantial evidence supports conviction — video and circumstances permit a reasonable juror to find deliberate collision and vehicle as deadly weapon |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for making a criminal threat (gun-to-head incident) | Prosecutor elected the gun-to-head incident; C.’s testimony that Brugman held a revolver to her head, said he would "smoke" her, and prior violence support specific intent, unequivocal threat, and sustained fear | Points to jury’s "not true" finding on firearm enhancement and acquittal on felony gun possession as inconsistent, arguing jury disbelieved the gun incident so evidence is insufficient | Court: Prosecutor made a clear election; inconsistent verdicts permitted; substantial evidence (gun-to-head testimony plus prior abuse, C.’s sustained fear) supports all elements of §422 conviction |
| 4. Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to strike prior strike and five-year serious-felony enhancement | Court properly weighed defendant’s criminal history and present offenses; psychological report and victim letter considered but do not make striking mandatory | Argued court ignored mitigating evidence (psych eval, victim’s letter) and focused only on punishment; asked for remand for individualized consideration | Court: No abuse of discretion — record indicates court considered materials and defendant’s long, recent history of violent offenses made striking unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (clarifies mental-state for assault; "reckless conduct" in Colantuono meant criminal negligence)
- People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206 (historical rule: criminal negligence alone insufficient for assault/battery)
- People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (standards for pinpoint jury instructions)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (abuse-of-discretion review and standards for striking strikes)
- In re George T., 33 Cal.4th 620 (elements required for criminal threat under § 422)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (deadly-weapon definition; vehicles can be deadly weapons based on use)
- People v. Golde, 163 Cal.App.4th 101 (assault conviction supported where defendant intentionally drove car toward victim)
- People v. Aznavoleh, 210 Cal.App.4th 1181 (objective reasonable-person test for foreseeability of battery from driving conduct)
- People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610 (inconsistent jury verdicts do not imply error; courts independently review sufficiency of evidence)