People v. Rhoden CA3
C080226
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Defendant Connell Rhoden confronted store employees outside an auto parts store after a truck honked; witnesses said he approached yelling and displayed a Phillips screwdriver while making threatening remarks.
- Victim Crossman testified he believed Rhoden intended to stab him, retreated into the store and locked the door; employee Bates also felt threatened and called police.
- Police located Rhoden about a quarter mile away; no screwdriver was found after an extensive search; Rhoden denied having a screwdriver or making threats.
- Trial: jury acquitted Rhoden of completed criminal threats and exhibiting a deadly weapon, convicted him of the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats and simple assault (misdemeanor); priors were found true; sentence imposed and strike later struck.
- Trial court instructed on criminal threats (CALCRIM No. 1300) and on attempted criminal threats (CALCRIM No. 460) but omitted an element required by People v. Chandler — that the intended threat was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear.
- Prosecutor argued the jury could convict of attempt without the sustained-reasonable-fear element; appellate court found the omission prejudicial and remanded for retrial on attempted criminal threats, affirming the simple assault conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that attempted criminal threats requires proof the intended threat was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear | People: any error was harmless because evidence showed sustained, reasonable fear | Rhoden: omission deprived jury of an essential element required by Chandler and was prejudicial | Court: error to omit that element; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction for attempted criminal threats reversed and remanded for retrial |
| Whether retrial is barred because evidence was insufficient to prove the omitted element | People: evidence (screwdriver display, close approach, victim retreat/locking door) suffices to support the element | Rhoden: jury rejected some weapon/exhibit testimony; omission may have led to an improper attempt conviction | Court: sufficient evidence exists that, if believed, could establish the sustained-reasonable-fear element; retrial appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chandler, 60 Cal.4th 508 (Chandler requires attempt to include that intended threat would cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear)
- People v. Jackson, 178 Cal.App.4th 590 (instructional omission of sustained-reasonable-fear element in attempted-threat case was prejudicial)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (trial court must instruct sua sponte on applicable general principles and lesser included offenses)
- People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (failure to instruct on an element is federal constitutional error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (omission of an element from jury instructions implicates federal constitutional harmless-error analysis)
- People v. Taylor, 48 Cal.4th 574 (court’s duty to instruct on applicable law including lesser included offenses)