People v. Heitz CA3, C091739

Jacob Heitz dated Adrian for ~6 months; he accused her of cheating, installed cameras, and carried a handgun.
At one incident he shoved Adrian into a table saw (scratching her), trapped her in a garage, pointed a semiautomatic firearm at her from ~2 feet away, and threatened to "blow your brains out." Adrian fled with her child and later reported to police.
A jury convicted Heitz of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code §245(b)) and domestic battery (§243(e)(1)); a firearm enhancement was found true; criminal threats count resulted in mistrial.
Heitz moved for a new trial arguing insufficient evidence the gun was loaded; the trial court denied the motion. He was sentenced to an aggregate six years (3 years for assault + 3-year firearm enhancement).
At trial Adrian made brief comments that she had "been down this road before," which Heitz says implied prior domestic violence; no timely Evidence Code §352 objection was made and defense later argued ineffective assistance for failing to object.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the new-trial motion, and (2) the claim about admission of prior-violence implication was forfeited and did not show prejudicial ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying new-trial motion based on alleged insufficiency (no evidence gun was loaded).	Circumstantial evidence (victim’s testimony, defendant’s words and conduct) supported a reasonable inference the gun was loaded and sustained the assault conviction.	No evidence was presented that the firearm was loaded, so pointing an unloaded gun cannot support assault.	Affirmed — court found independent review supported a reasonable inference the gun was loaded based on victim’s testimony and defendant’s conduct; no abuse of discretion.
Whether admission of victim’s statements that she’d "been down this road before" warranted reversal / whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting.	Any objection was forfeited because no timely/specific §352 objection was made; even if not forfeited, the brief statements referred to an ex-husband and were not prejudicial.	The testimony was vague and more prejudicial than probative; failure to object was constitutionally ineffective assistance.	Affirmed — claim forfeited for lack of timely §352 objection; ineffective-assistance claim fails because defendant did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

People v. Penunuri, 5 Cal.5th 126 (Cal. 2018) (pointing a gun can support assault if jurors reasonably infer it was loaded)
People v. Rodriguez, 20 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1999) (circumstantial evidence may support inference a gun was loaded; defendant’s words/conduct relevant)
People v. Lochtefeld, 77 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (displaying and aiming a gun plus threats can support loaded-gun inference)
People v. Lewis, 26 Cal.4th 334 (Cal. 2001) (standard of review for new-trial rulings — broad discretion, appellate deference)
People v. Harrison, 35 Cal.4th 208 (Cal. 2005) (must make timely and specific §352 objection to preserve claim on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003) (defendant must show a reasonable probability the result would differ to prove prejudice)
People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2008) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
People v. Mearse, 93 Cal.App.2d 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949) (examples of cases upholding assault convictions based on threats and conduct)
People v. Montgomery, 15 Cal.App. 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911) (early authority supporting inference of a loaded weapon from surrounding facts)