People v. Kruse, 56 Cal.App.5th 1034

On Sept. 11, 2019, defendant Cody Kruse remained at an apartment after an argument and allegedly threatened Samantha Howell that he would "put a bullet through [her] brain." Howell left and neighbors called 911.
Police responded; Kruse was detained, released at the scene, then re-detained after officers determined there was probable cause for a criminal-threat arrest. Methamphetamine was later found in his backpack.
At the station Kruse repeatedly taunted and challenged officers; body-worn camera footage captured his confrontational statements.
A jury convicted Kruse of criminal threats (§ 422), attempting to deter an executive officer by threat or violence (§ 69), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11377). He received an aggregate prison term.
On appeal Kruse argued (1) the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about being investigated for killing his ex‑girlfriend’s baby, and (2) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Penal Code § 148(a)(1) as a lesser included offense of § 69.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admitting prosecutor's cross-examination about a baby‑homicide investigation	People: impeachment was proper because defense opened the topic on redirect and the subject bore on credibility	Kruse: the court had previously excluded references to a “baby” as unduly prejudicial; cross about a baby homicide violated that ruling and Evidence Code § 352	Court: asking about the baby was an abuse of discretion (court had ruled such references excluded) but the error was harmless under Watson; no reasonable probability of a different verdict
Failure to instruct on § 148(a)(1) as a lesser included offense of § 69	People: prosecutor pursued the § 69 theory based on threats/deterrence (CALCRIM 2651) and did not seek conviction under the resisting-by-force branch	Kruse: § 148(a)(1) is a lesser included offense of § 69 and the jury should have been instructed on it	Court: no error — § 148(a)(1) is a lesser of the resisting-by-force theory of § 69 but not of the threats/deterrence theory; prosecution pursued only the latter, so no duty to instruct on § 148(a)(1)

People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (2013) (explains two separate ways to violate § 69 and when § 148(a)(1) is a lesser included offense)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless-error standard for state-law evidentiary error)
People v. Partida, 37 Cal.4th 428 (2005) (application of Watson harmless-error analysis)
People v. Viera, 35 Cal.4th 264 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Contreras, 58 Cal.4th 123 (2013) (trial court’s broad discretion to exclude collateral impeachment evidence under Evid. Code § 352)
People v. Alvarez, 27 Cal.4th 1161 (2002) (principle that cases do not stand for propositions they did not consider)