People v. Turner
37 Cal. App. 5th 882
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Victim Mary H. was attacked in her home by Heaven Turner and Michael Rafferty; Turner cut Mary’s face (slitting her upper lip), broke a front tooth, and stabbed her shoulder; Mary required stitches and a tooth extraction and had a visible scar.
- Turner was tried on counts including mayhem, first‑degree robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon; the jury convicted Turner of mayhem and first‑degree robbery but acquitted on the assault with a deadly weapon count and found great‑bodily‑injury allegations not true; Rafferty was convicted of first‑degree robbery.
- At trial the court instructed the jury using a modified CALCRIM No. 801: mayhem can be proven by (1) permanent disfigurement OR (2) slitting someone’s lip, and noted a disfiguring injury may be permanent even if medically repairable.
- Turner argued on appeal the court prejudicially erred by failing sua sponte to instruct that (a) great bodily injury is an element of mayhem, and (b) the ‘‘slit of the lip’’ theory also requires permanence like the disfigurement theory.
- The People contended Turner waived instructional objections by not requesting clarifying language; the trial court gave statutory language and no amplification was requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had a duty to sua sponte instruct that great bodily injury is an element of mayhem | Turner: Pitts requires that great bodily injury be treated as an element; court should have instructed jury accordingly | People: No duty; instruction tracked section 203 and Turner failed to request clarification | Court: No duty to instruct sua sponte; Pitts does not compel a separate great bodily injury instruction; statutory text suffices unless defendant requests amplification |
| Whether permanence is required for the "slit of the lip" theory of mayhem | Turner: If disfigurement requires permanence, the slit‑lip theory should also require permanence | People: The permanence graft applies to disfigurement theory only; statute lists slitting lip as independently sufficient | Court: No authority requiring permanence for slitting nose/ear/lip; permanence is required for disfigurement theory but not for the statutory slit‑lip theory |
| Whether the trial instruction was misleading by mixing statutory language with case law grafts | Turner: Instruction misleading by including permanence language for disfigurement but not for slit‑lip | People: Instruction followed statute and CALCRIM; defendant did not request changes | Court: Instruction not misleading; defendant may request pinpoint instructions if she believes facts fall outside section 203 |
| Sentencing / remand issues (Rafferty) | Rafferty: court abused discretion in denying mistrial; sought relief on enhancements | People: Issues largely forfeited or without merit; trial court has discretion on striking enhancement | Court: Rafferty forfeited many arguments; remanded for trial court to consider striking five‑year enhancement under section 667(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (Supreme Court of California) (CALCRIM No. 801 should not include a wholesale serious‑bodily‑injury requirement for mayhem)
- People v. Pitts, 223 Cal.App.3d 1547 (Court of Appeal) (discussed as holding great bodily injury is treated as an element for purposes of enhancement analysis)
- Goodman v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.3d 621 (Court of Appeal) (discusses permanence requirement grafted onto disfigurement theory of mayhem)