People v. Greer CA2/8, B305324

Background

Defendant Nicholas Sean Greer (appellant) was convicted by a jury of making criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422) and the jury found true a personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon enhancement (Pen. Code § 12022(b)(1)); he was acquitted of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)).
The trial courtfound a prior strike and a five‑year prior true; sentenced Greer to the high term (3 years) doubled for the strike plus one year for the weapon enhancement (aggregate 7 years). Greer appealed.
Greer sought to admit testimony from his half‑sister Alisha to show the victim (Edwin) had a pattern of making false threats to get relatives out of the family home; the trial court excluded Alisha under Evidence Code § 352 as a likely “trial within a trial.”
The trial court instructed the jury on the § 12022(b) weapon enhancement using CALCRIM No. 3145 but deleted the bracketed language defining which objects are "inherently deadly" and the factors for assessing use‑based dangerousness.
On appeal the court affirmed the exclusion of Alisha’s testimony (no constitutional breach and no abuse of discretion) but held the weapon‑enhancement instruction was a legal error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; it reversed the true finding on the enhancement and remanded. Fines/fees challenge was rejected as forfeited and not remediable under § 1237.2.

Issues

Issue	People's Argument	Greer's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Alisha's testimony (right to present a defense)	Evidence had little probative value and would require calling additional witnesses and become a "trial within a trial"; § 352 exclusion proper	Testimony was admissible impeachment under Evid. Code § 1103 to show victim's motive to fabricate and would be critical to defense	Affirmed. Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion and did not completely preclude Greer's defense; any error not prejudicial under Watson.
Instructional error on § 12022(b) weapon enhancement (CALCRIM 3145 omissions)	Error was not reversible because any mistake was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Instruction omitted definition/factors for "inherently deadly" and misstates the law, risking jurors finding enhancement based on an improper theory	Reversed enhancement. Legal instructional error (alternative‑theory error) required Chapman review and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Challenges to punitive fines and assessments (Dueñas claim)	Greer forfeited the claim by failing to object at sentencing; § 1237.2 and sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to modify once appeal filed	Dueñas requires consideration of ability to pay and stay/reduction of fines; trial court could address via § 1237.2 letter	Affirmed. Claim forfeited; § 1237.2 inapplicable here and trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter sentence after appeal and statutory time limits (per Jinkins).

Key Cases Cited

People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2019) (alternative‑theory error when jury not instructed on definition/factors for "inherently deadly" objects)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Bittaker, 48 Cal.3d 1046 (Cal. 1989) (probative value of impeachment by proof of falsity of prior accusation)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for reversal of nonconstitutional trial errors)
People v. Bacon, 50 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2010) (only evidentiary error amounting to complete preclusion of defense violates right to present defense)
People v. Jinkins, 58 Cal.App.5th 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (limits on postjudgment correction of fines and exhaustion/waiver principles)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (ability‑to‑pay analysis for fines and fees)
People v. Stutelberg, 29 Cal.App.5th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (classification of objects as inherently deadly vs. use‑based analysis)