People v. Donvoan CA5
F070345
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Jeremiah Donovan was charged in two cases: possession of methamphetamine for sale (pleaded guilty) and assault with a deadly weapon (jury conviction), with multiple sentence enhancements. At combined sentencing Donovan received 20 years 4 months. This appeal challenges only the assault conviction.
- Incident: on Jan. 4, 2014, victim Zane Monroe made a 911 call saying he was struck in the back of the head with a flashlight; he had a large scalp laceration and received about seven staples at a hospital.
- Witnesses (Monroe and Bonnie Palmer) initially identified "Miah" (Donovan) as the assailant and described clothing and a dark object; officers located a matching plaid shirt, a flashlight, and dirt bikes at Donovan’s home; Donovan denied involvement.
- Monroe failed to appear at trial; the prosecution obtained and played the 911 call on the second day of trial and disclosed it late. The trial court admitted the call under the spontaneous-utterance exception but found late disclosure and imposed a lesser sanction (allowing defense to play a recorded recantation) rather than excluding the call.
- Defense played a post-incident recorded call in which Monroe recanted or minimized his identification of Donovan. The jury convicted Donovan of assault with a deadly weapon and found true the great-bodily-injury enhancement (Pen. Code § 12022.7(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to exclude late-produced 911 call | Prosecution: call admissible; late but not prejudicial; exclusion unnecessary | Donovan: late disclosure required exclusion as the appropriate sanction | No abuse of discretion; exclusion not required where no willful concealment or significant prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request jury instruction on late disclosure (CALCRIM 306) | Prosecution: no prejudice from omission given corroboration of the call | Donovan: counsel deficient for not requesting instruction, prejudicing verdict | No ineffective assistance—no prejudice shown even if instruction should have been requested |
| Whether evidence supported great-bodily-injury enhancement under § 12022.7(a) | Prosecution: deep scalp laceration, profuse bleeding, hospital treatment and staples constitute great bodily injury | Donovan: argued injury insufficient to qualify as "great bodily injury" | Court affirmed enhancement—jury reasonably could find the injury "great" given wound depth, bleeding, and hospital staples |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard)
- People v. Jordan, 108 Cal.App.4th 349 (exclusion as discovery sanction appropriate only after other sanctions and a showing of willfulness and significant prejudice)
- People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal.4th 263 (discovery violations reviewed under Watson harmless-error standard; court may advise jury of discovery failures)
- People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal.4th 1082 (reciprocal discovery obligations under § 1054.1)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (definition and proof of great bodily injury)
- People v. Flores, 216 Cal.App.4th 251 (comparative example where stitches and medical treatment supported serious-injury findings)