50 Cal.App.5th 357
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- After a party defendant attacked the victim, striking his face/head; a witness said defendant used brass knuckles.
- Victim sustained a ~4 cm laceration above the eyebrow requiring suturing, subconjunctival hemorrhage, jaw swelling, vision impairment for days, and a lasting scar and neck pain.
- Jury convicted defendant of battery (lesser included of §243(d)) on count 1 and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury with a true personal-great-bodily-injury enhancement (§12022.7) on count 2; acquitted on assault with a deadly weapon and a second battery.
- Trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike the great-bodily-injury enhancement; defendant was sentenced to five years.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent (serious bodily injury acquittal vs. great bodily injury finding), (2) CALCRIM No. 332 (expert-opinion) was improperly given, and (3) CALCRIM Nos. 875/3160’s definition of "great bodily injury" ("greater than minor or moderate harm") is ambiguous and erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent verdicts: acquittal on serious bodily injury vs. true great-bodily-injury enhancement | Verdicts may stand; courts independently review sufficiency; ‘‘serious’’ and ‘‘great’’ have distinct statutory definitions and the enhancement is supported by evidence | Acquittal on serious bodily injury in count 1 precludes a later finding of great bodily injury on count 2 because terms are essentially equivalent | Affirmed. Inconsistent verdicts allowed; limited exception inapplicable; definitions distinct; enhancement supported by substantial evidence |
| CALCRIM No. 332 (expert-opinion instruction) | Instruction was appropriate or, if marginally inapplicable, any error was harmless; defendant also requested the instruction | Instruction was inapplicable because the doctor offered no opinion and its presence could have misled jurors to discount the doctor’s factual testimony | Any error was harmless. Jury had standard credibility instructions; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| CALCRIM Nos. 875 & 3160 wording ("greater than minor or moderate harm") | The instructions, read as a whole, convey that great bodily injury is "significant or substantial"—i.e., greater than moderate harm; jurors presumed competent to apply them | The disjunctive "or" can be read to allow harm greater than minor (but less than moderate) to qualify; Medellin panel held similar language problematic | Affirmed. No reasonable likelihood jurors construed the instruction to allow less-than-moderate harm; instruction legally adequate when read in context |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2001) (general rule allowing inherently inconsistent verdicts; courts independently review sufficiency)
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (Cal. 2013) ("serious bodily injury" and "great bodily injury" have separate statutory definitions)
- People v. Hawkins, 15 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (discussed overlap between section 243(d) and great-bodily-injury enhancements)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2008) (definition and meaning of "great bodily injury")
- People v. Medellin, 45 Cal.App.5th 519 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (panel opinion criticizing CALCRIM "greater than minor or moderate" language)
- People v. Quinonez, 46 Cal.App.5th 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (different panel upholding CALCRIM wording)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1990) (jurors presumed competent to understand instructions)