People v. Merritt
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265
| Cal. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 19, 2012 two armed robberies in Victorville were captured on video; victims identified Andre Merritt in lineups (one identified at trial).
- Merritt was charged with two counts of robbery and firearm-use enhancements (Pen. Code §§ 211, 12022.53(b)).
- The trial court failed to give the standard jury instruction listing the statutory elements of robbery (CALCRIM No. 1600); it did instruct on the required mental state (intent to permanently deprive) and on firearm use.
- Defense theory was misidentification/alibi; defense counsel expressly conceded that whoever committed the acts committed robbery and focused the contest on identity.
- The jury convicted Merritt on both robbery counts and found the firearm allegations true; the Court of Appeal reversed under People v. Cummings, but the California Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held the omission was subject to harmless-error review under Neder and Mil, and found the omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on this record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to instruct on elements of robbery is amenable to harmless-error review | AG: Neder and subsequent precedent permit harmless-error analysis; not all omissions are structural | Merritt: Cummings requires automatic reversal when substantially all elements are withdrawn | Court: Amenable to harmless-error review unless the omission vitiates all jury findings (structural error) |
| Whether the instructional omission was prejudicial here | AG: Omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given concessions, instructions on intent/identity/firearm, and overwhelming evidence | Merritt: Complete failure to give elements deprived jury of law and is not harmless (per Cummings) | Court: Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — jury decided identity, intent, and firearm use; defense conceded robbery occurred and videotape/ testimony overwhelmingly showed robbery |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cummings, 4 Cal.4th 1233 (Cal. 1993) (previously held omission of elements withdrawing substantially all elements required reversal)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element may be subject to Chapman harmless-error review)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (defective reasonable-doubt instruction is structural and not subject to harmless-error review)
- People v. Mil, 53 Cal.4th 400 (2012) (extended Neder to omission of two elements; harmless-error analysis may apply depending on whether jury findings were vitiated)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (reaffirmed Neder: harmless-error analysis applies unless jury findings are categorically vitiated)
- People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 (1998) (instructional omission may be harmless where defendant concedes the omitted element)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury must find every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (limitations on judge-found facts increasing punishment; jury-trial right implications)