45 Cal.App.5th 519
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- At a brewery restaurant Medellin became involved in a melee and punched two employees, one strike to each victim.
- Victim 1 suffered a jaw laceration that required three stitches and loosened a false tooth; pain and a small scar resulted.
- Victim 2 suffered a lip laceration that required seven stitches, significant swelling, pain, and scarring; witnesses saw Medellin wind up and deliver a downward punch.
- A jury convicted Medellin of two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)) and found true great-bodily-injury enhancements (§ 12022.7) as to each count.
- On appeal the court considered (1) failure to give a lesser-included instruction (simple assault), (2) sufficiency of the evidence for convictions and enhancements, and (3) whether the prosecutor prejudicially misstated the law by exploiting ambiguity in CALCRIM’s definition of “great bodily injury.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of simple assault | People: evidence did not warrant lesser instruction or, alternatively, defendant invited any error | Medellin: court was required to instruct regardless of defense tactic; error is not forfeited | Waived — defense counsel expressly declined the instruction for tactical reasons, so invited-error doctrine bars reversal |
| Whether evidence sufficed to support convictions and § 12022.7 enhancements | People: the force and resulting injuries (stitches, loosened tooth, swelling, scarring, forced to hospital) permit a reasonable jury to find force likely to produce great bodily injury and that great bodily injury occurred | Medellin: injuries were not severe enough to show force likely to produce or to have caused great bodily injury | Held sufficient — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, substantial evidence supported both convictions and enhancements |
| Whether prosecutor prejudicially misstated the law by arguing CALCRIM means "greater than minor or moderate harm" disjunctively (i.e., greater than minor alone suffices) and whether CALCRIM is ambiguous | People: prosecutor’s misstatement conceded but argued harmless because jury was instructed correctly and no objection was made | Medellin: prosecutor emphasized the “more than minor” theory and CALCRIM’s wording (“greater than minor or moderate harm”) is susceptible to a disjunctive reading, creating an improper alternative theory | Reversed — prosecutor’s argument plus CALCRIM’s phrasing could reasonably allow a conviction on the invalid theory ("more than minor" alone); the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so convictions and enhancements are reversed and the cause remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Souza, 54 Cal.4th 90 (2012) (invited-error doctrine can waive claim that a lesser-included instruction should have been given)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (1998) (court must instruct on lesser included offenses when evidence warrants; purpose is to ensure jury considers full range of verdicts)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (2008) (whether an injury is "great bodily injury" is a factual question for the jury; established guidance on proof via injury severity, pain, and medical care)
- People v. Escobar, 3 Cal.4th 740 (1992) (history and definition of "great bodily injury" as "significant or substantial physical injury")
- In re B.M., 6 Cal.5th 528 (2018) ("likely" means more than a mere possibility; focus on force actually used)
- People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (2014) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misstatements; whether there is a reasonable likelihood jurors applied comments erroneously)
- People v. Stringer, 41 Cal.App.5th 974 (2019) (CALCRIM language using "or" can create ambiguity and an alternative-theory error)
- People v. Brown, 210 Cal.App.4th 1 (2012) (disjunctive phrasing in CALCRIM can permit a legally invalid theory and warrant reversal)