Background

• Santana was charged with attempted mayhem and two counts of assault with a firearm arising from a 2007 shooting where Vallejo, 15, was shot in the leg and Vallejo/Ortiz identified Santana as the shooter.
• The trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 801 stating mayhem requires proof of serious bodily injury, including a gunshot wound as a possible example.
• The jury found Santana guilty on all counts after a mistrial and subsequent trial, and the court sentenced him to 25 years to life plus additional time.
• The Court of Appeal majority reversed the attempted mayhem conviction due to the modified instruction, deeming it unfair and prejudicial.
• The Supreme Court granted review to decide if CALCRIM No. 801 properly requires proof of serious bodily injury for mayhem.
• The Court held that CALCRIM No. 801 improperly imposes a separate serious bodily injury requirement and reversed the Court of Appeal, remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Pitts, 223 Cal.App.3d 1547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (great bodily injury element for mayhem; supports distinction between great and serious bodily injury)
• People v. Newby, 167 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (disfigurement must be permanent for mayhem)
• Hill v. People, 23 Cal.App.4th 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (great bodily injury element; elaborates on injury severity in mayhem)
• Keenan, 227 Cal.App.3d 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (mayhem requires significant injury; discusses permanent disfigurement)
• Ausbie, 123 Cal.App.4th 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (addressed necessarily included offenses; questioned separate serious bodily injury element)
• Thomas, 96 Cal.App.3d 507 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (disabling injury must be more than slight and temporary)