62 Cal.App.5th 424
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant John Southard was involved in two traffic stops (Dec. 18 and Dec. 25, 2018); after each incident he was charged with seven counts of resisting/obstructing officers and one misdemeanor count of methamphetamine possession.
- Dec. 18: CHP officers stopped defendant’s pickup (purported lane/registration concerns); defendant fled on foot, was chased, tasered, and arrested; officers later recovered two folding knives.
- Dec. 25: As a passenger in a Volvo, officers (aware of the earlier stop) attempted a warrant check; defendant refused to exit, officers deployed a police dog, broke a window, used a baton and multiple tasers, and extracted defendant, who complained he couldn’t breathe; two knives and a canister containing methamphetamine were recovered.
- At trial the court gave standard CALCRIM instructions including CALCRIM Nos. 2652/2656 (lawful performance requirement) and 2670, but also (1) a special instruction drawn from appellate opinions stating a defendant’s intervening violent act can ‘‘dissipate the taint’’ of an unlawful detention, and (2) CALCRIM No. 250 (an instruction minimizing knowledge requirements).
- The jury convicted on all counts after substantial deliberation and viewing videorecordings; Southard appealed, arguing (among other things) instructional errors; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the special instruction and CALCRIM No. 250 were erroneous and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a special jury instruction quoting appellate decisions (saying a defendant’s intervening conduct can "dissipate the taint" of an unlawful detention) was proper | Instruction correctly stated law (citing People v. Cox / In re Richard G.) | Instruction improperly applied suppression-case language as a jury instruction and removed the officers’ lawful-performance element | Error — gave a misstatement of law that could nullify the lawful-performance element and was prejudicial; conviction reversed |
| Whether giving CALCRIM No. 250 (reducing required mental state) was proper when offenses required knowledge | Instruction appropriate for general-intent aspects | CALCRIM No. 250 improperly eliminated the specific knowledge element required for resisting and the drug-possession count | Error — improper because crimes required knowledge and that element was contested; prejudicial |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction (when multiple acts alleged) was error | Not argued / not reached | Trial court had duty to instruct on unanimity when multiple distinct acts alleged | Not reached on appeal (court reversed on other grounds) |
| Whether the instructional errors were harmless | Errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Errors removed contested elements (lawful performance, knowledge); evidence was disputed | Not harmless; reversal required under Chapman/Neder standards |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206 (1994) (caution: appellate opinion language may be unsuited for jury instructions)
- People v. Maurer, 32 Cal.App.4th 1121 (1995) (removal of an element from jury consideration is reversible constitutional error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted-element errors reviewed for harmlessness only if the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt the omitted element was uncontested)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error requires harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt analysis)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury must decide every element of the charged offense)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (1997) (officer must be acting lawfully to be "performing a lawful duty")
- People v. Hunter, 202 Cal.App.4th 261 (2011) (reinforcing caution about converting appellate discussion into jury instructions)
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (2000) (standard of review for instructional error is de novo)