People v. Walker
237 Cal. App. 4th 111
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Dec. 6, 2012, deputy found Walker seated in a car in a motel lot known for drug activity; detected smell of fresh marijuana. Search of the car uncovered a thermos with 11 small baggies totaling 23.14 grams of marijuana; Walker had a medical marijuana card and $249 in cash. Walker admitted possession and said the marijuana was for personal medical use.
- Walker was charged with felony possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Safety Code § 11359). At trial he conceded possession but argued personal medical use; prosecution presented evidence—packaging, cash, location—consistent with sales.
- The trial court and counsel, after an off‑record conference, declined to give the jury an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple possession (Health & Safety Code § 11357(b), an infraction under one ounce), reasoning infractions need not be tried to a jury and the Compassionate Use Act defense applied only to simple possession.
- The jury convicted Walker of possession for sale; he received a middle term of two years plus four one‑year prior‑prison‑term enhancements. Walker appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense (simple possession) and that the omission was prejudicial; conviction reversed and remanded for further proceedings (retrial allowed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must instruct jury on lesser included offense of simple possession (an infraction) when defendant is charged with felony possession for sale | The People argued the evidence supported sale and that failing to instruct was harmless; also relied on precedent treating infractions differently | Walker argued the jury should have been instructed on simple possession so it could consider medical use and a lesser offense | Court held the trial court erred: a lesser included infraction must be instructed to the jury when supported by evidence and the omission was prejudicial |
| Whether an infraction cannot be tried to a jury when joined with a felony | People argued procedural differences justify excluding infractions from jury consideration | Walker argued Penal Code allows a jury to find a lesser included offense and infractions may be effectively tried with felonies | Court held infractions that are lesser included offenses are properly tried to the jury when a felony is tried and must be instructed on |
| Whether substantial evidence supported giving the lesser‑included instruction | People argued facts (packaging, cash, location) compelled inference of intent to sell, so no basis for lesser offense instruction | Walker pointed to medical card, admission of personal use, absence of scales or sales evidence to support instruction | Court held substantial evidence supported instruction; failure was prejudicial under Watson standard |
| Whether defense counsel invited the error by agreeing to omit the instruction | People argued counsel agreed to omit it as a tactical choice (invited error) | Walker argued counsel merely acquiesced to the court’s mistaken procedure and made no tactical waiver | Court held no invited error: record lacks an express tactical waiver; court’s duty to instruct cannot be nullified by counsel’s acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valdez, 32 Cal.4th 73 (instruction on lesser included offenses required when evidence raises question)
- People v. Geiger, 35 Cal.3d 510 (right to lesser‑included instructions grounded in fairness)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (jury behavior when elements in doubt)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (distinguishing lesser included from lesser related offenses)
- People v. St. Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524 (state interest in correct convictions; courts as truth‑seeking forums)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (standard of review for instructional error)
- People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (no lesser‑included instruction when only an unexplainable rejection of prosecution evidence would support it)
- People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal.3d 307 (invited‑error doctrine requires express tactical purpose)
- People v. Avalos, 37 Cal.3d 216 (trial court’s duty to instruct cannot be nullified by counsel’s mistake)
- People v. Souza, 54 Cal.4th 90 (independent review whether court failed to instruct on lesser included offense)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (prejudice standard for erroneous instructions)
- People v. Soojian, 190 Cal.App.4th 491 (hung jury is more favorable than guilty verdict)