People v. Crawford CA3
C091827
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- At ~3:00 a.m., Crawford and a friend entered Modoc County woods after Crawford had smoked methamphetamine; Crawford brought a shotgun expecting a mountain lion.
- Kunert’s girlfriend (L.) and their dog Aurora initially remained in Kunert’s truck; during the 15–20 minutes the men were in the woods L. and Aurora left the truck and went into the woods as well (unknown to Crawford).
- Crawford saw a tail behind a tree, fired at what he believed was a mountain lion; pellets struck L. in both legs and hit Aurora’s tail. Crawford fashioned a tourniquet and drove L. to the hospital.
- In consolidated matters (F-19-307 and F-19-467) a jury convicted Crawford of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm (felony) and misdemeanor battery; he was also found in violation of prior probation.
- On appeal the court reversed the battery conviction for insufficient evidence, affirmed the grossly negligent discharge conviction, accepted the People’s concessions to (1) apply AB 1950 retroactively reducing probation to two years and (2) award 10 additional days’ custody credit, and directed trial-court sentencing/probation modifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for battery | Evidence (photos, Crawford’s conduct after shooting, lack of severe intoxication) supports that Crawford knew facts establishing that firing would probably and directly result in battery | No evidence Crawford knew L. was in the immediate vicinity or in the line of fire when he shot; therefore battery requires knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to foresee a battery | Reversed: insufficient evidence for battery because no substantial evidence Crawford knew L. was nearby when he fired |
| Sufficiency of evidence for grossly negligent discharge (Pen. Code §246.3) | Jury could find Crawford willfully discharged a firearm in a grossly negligent manner posing reasonably foreseeable risk to human life despite remote location | Shooting in remote/wooded area does not automatically violate §246.3; must show foreseeable risk to people | Affirmed: substantial evidence Crawford’s conduct was grossly negligent and created a reasonably foreseeable risk of human injury |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument) | Prosecutor’s characterization of meth use and reasonableness supported inferences; no objection at trial | Prosecutor misstated law and argued facts not in evidence; misconduct warrants reversal | Forfeited on appeal for failure to object at trial; claim not reviewed on merits |
| Application of Assembly Bill 1950 (probation term) | AB 1950 reduces maximum felony probation to two years and is ameliorative and retroactive to nonfinal convictions | No contrary legislative intent; applies here | Granted: probation term reduced from three years to two years (court directed to modify probation order) |
| Custody credit | — | Crawford seeks additional 10 days of custody credit in F-19-307 | Granted by concession of the Attorney General; order modified to reflect additional 10 days (total 48 days conduct credit) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001) (battery/assault requires knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to foresee a battery)
- People v. Ramirez, 45 Cal.4th 980 (Cal. 2009) (§246.3 requires gross negligence and a reasonably foreseeable risk of human injury; no need to prove a specific person was present)
- People v. Alonzo, 13 Cal.App.4th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (elements of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm)
- People v. Hayes, 142 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (example where intentional act with knowledge of victim’s proximity supported battery)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Clem, 78 Cal.App.4th 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (§246.3 may not reach shootings in isolated places posing no foreseeable threat to human life)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory changes are presumptively retroactive absent contrary intent)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2008) (courts defer to jury credibility determinations when reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)