People v. Stutelberg
240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 156
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Nathaniel Stutelberg, intoxicated outside a bar, used a box cutter during confrontations with multiple people; he lacerated Michelle's head and swung at Chris but missed.
- Charged with multiple counts including mayhem (count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 3); jury convicted of mayhem (lesser included) with a deadly-weapon enhancement as to Michelle and convicted on assault with a deadly weapon as to Chris; acquitted on other counts.
- Trial court instructed the jury using CALCRIM language that a nonfirearm "deadly weapon" may be an object that is "inherently deadly" or is "used in such a way" as to be capable of causing death or great bodily injury.
- A box cutter is not an "inherently deadly" weapon as a matter of law; inclusion of that language in the instructions was conceded to be erroneous.
- The appellate court had to decide (1) whether the error was legal or factual, and (2) what prejudice standard applies, then whether the error was harmless as to each conviction.
- Court held the instruction error was legal (not factual); applied the Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and found the error harmless as to Michelle (count 1) but prejudicial as to Chris (count 3), reversing count 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CALCRIM instruction allowing classification of a nonfirearm as an "inherently deadly" weapon was erroneous | People: instruction was correct in form and any error was factual (inapplicable theory) | Stutelberg: instruction stated incorrect law because a box cutter cannot be an inherently deadly weapon | Court: Instructional language was legally erroneous (legal error) |
| Standard for evaluating prejudice from that legal instructional error | People: apply traditional Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard | Stutelberg: requires heightened showing that no juror relied on invalid theory (per Aledamat) | Court: apply Chapman traditional standard; do not require affirmative showing |
| Whether the erroneous instruction was harmless as to the mayhem deadly-weapon enhancement (Michelle) | People: harmless — evidence showed box cutter was used in manner likely to cause great bodily injury | Stutelberg: error could have affected verdict | Court: Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; ample evidence and argument supported deadly use theory |
| Whether the erroneous instruction was harmless as to assault with a deadly weapon (Chris) | People: harmless — same weapon and context | Stutelberg: prejudicial because use toward Chris was ambiguous and he was not injured | Court: Prejudicial; reversal of count 3 required due to factual uncertainty about how box cutter was used against Chris |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.2d 177 (describing when objects are inherently deadly) (establishes box cutters are not inherently deadly)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (distinguishes legal and factual instructional error; discusses prejudice standards)
- People v. Aledamat, 20 Cal.App.5th 1149 (construed similar box-cutter instruction as legal error; advocated heightened prejudice showing)
- People v. Merritt, 2 Cal.5th 819 (reiterates Chapman harmlessness inquiry for elemental instruction errors)
- People v. Brown, 210 Cal.App.4th 1 (found similar instruction error harmless where evidence showed deadly use)
- People v. Hudson, 38 Cal.4th 1002 (reversed where jury could have convicted based on incomplete/inaccurate element instruction)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error principles for omitted elements of an offense)