People v. Flemons CA3, C075055

On July 27, 2012, neighbors and family members reported a loud, heated argument at defendant Jeffrey Flemons’s house during which Flemons was seen holding a knife; a neighbor called 911 reporting someone had threatened to kill another.
Police arrived, ordered Flemons to drop the knife; he initially refused, advanced toward others, then dropped the knife and was handcuffed. Officers and bystanders reported threats by Flemons to "cut" or "kill" T.Y.; several family members initially told police Flemons threatened T.Y. but later recanted much of those statements at trial.
Flemons was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)), criminal threats (§ 422), and felony child abuse (§ 273a(a)); jury convicted on counts one through three and found true deadly-weapon enhancements; two resisting charges resulted in a mistrial and were later dismissed.
On appeal Flemons argued the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to instruct the jury on attempted criminal threats (a lesser included offense of criminal threats), and requested independent appellate review of the sealed Pitchess hearing record.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the record, examined the Pitchess materials in camera, and considered whether instructional omission was prejudicial under the Watson harmless-error standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had a duty to instruct sua sponte on attempted criminal threats as a lesser included offense of criminal threats	The prosecution (People) argued the evidence supported conviction for the greater offense and no lesser-included instruction was required	Flemons argued inconsistent trial testimony (recantations by family) created substantial evidence supporting attempted criminal threats, so the court should have instructed the jury on that lesser offense	Court held no reversible error: even if instruction should have been given, any omission was harmless under Watson because the evidence supporting conviction was strong and no reasonable probability the result would differ
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying Pitchess discovery to Flemons for officers’ personnel records	People argued the trial court properly conducted in camera review and found no relevant records to disclose	Flemons asked for independent appellate review of the sealed Pitchess record to ensure proper handling	Court reviewed the Pitchess record and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion; no releasable personnel materials existed

Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (establishes defendant’s procedure to seek peace officer personnel records)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (1998) (trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses supported by evidence; standard for instruction)
People v. Taylor, 48 Cal.4th 574 (2010) (reiterates substantial-evidence standard for lesser-included instructions)
People v. Chandler, 60 Cal.4th 508 (2014) (defines attempted criminal threat elements)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless-error standard for omission of lesser-included instructions in noncapital cases)
People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (2013) (application of Watson harmless-error analysis)
People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (2001) (appellate scope of review for Pitchess records)
Alford v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1033 (2003) (standard for reviewing Pitchess rulings)
People v. Myles, 53 Cal.4th 1181 (2012) (principles governing Pitchess in camera review and disclosure)