1

Filed 9/10/21 P. v. Adam CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES EDWARD ADAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

C090510

(Super. Ct. No. 17FE004074)

A jury found defendant James Edward Adam guilty of residential burglary, 

making criminal threats, and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found true that 

defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (an axe handle) in the 

commission of the offenses. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial and 

sentenced him to three years eight months in state prison.1 

1 Defendant was sentenced to eight months for evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 

2800.2) in a separate case. 
2

Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a 

new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) the evidence was insufficient 

to support the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. We reject both contentions 

and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Evidence at Trial

Defendant’s mother, Bernice, owned a house in Sacramento. Bernice had four 

adult children: defendant, Donna, Ken, and John. Donna lived with Bernice in the family 

home. Jack, a family friend, lived in a small cottage or shed on the property. Jack paid 

Bernice rent until her death in June 2015. He then paid rent to Donna. Donna served as 

the executor of Bernice’s estate. Donna died in April 2018, a couple of months before 

trial. 

A fire broke out on the property in March 2016. The fire destroyed a three-car

garage and its contents, including personal property belonging to the siblings. The fire 

also sparked a family rift between defendant and Ken, on the one hand, and Donna and 

John, on the other. Each side submitted separate insurance claims for personal property 

loss from the fire. A dispute developed as to whether defendant and Ken should be

entitled to recover their fire losses. The dispute centered on whether defendant and Ken 

lived in the house prior to Bernice’s death, a condition precedent to recovery under her 

homeowners’ policy. The squabble over insurance money was a recurring theme 

throughout the case and on appeal. 

The events leading to the charged offenses occurred in February 2017, when the 

insurance claims were still pending. Jack was the only prosecution witness to testify to 

these events. Jack testified that defendant told him Ken would be coming over with 

insurance papers for him to sign. Ken appeared the next day with papers representing 

that defendant and Ken had been living at the house. Jack refused to sign, saying the 
3

matter was none of his business, and he did not want to be involved. During the trial, 

Jack explained that he refused to sign the papers because they were false. 

Jack testified that he was asleep in the shed in the early morning hours of February 

13, 2017, the day after his meeting with Ken. He was suddenly awakened when 

defendant burst through the door of the shed. Defendant was holding an upraised axe 

handle, with no axe blade. The axe handle was approximately three feet long, and three 

inches in diameter. Defendant demanded to know why Jack had refused to sign the 

papers. Defendant said that Jack would sign if he knew what was good for him and had 

“better not call police” or tell Donna that he had been there. 

Jack testified that defendant said he would “ ‘fuck [him] up’ ” and “ ‘bash [his] 

fucking head in.’ ” He also testified that defendant knocked the phone from his hand 

before he could call police, and then grabbed the phone from the foot of his bed, where it 

landed. Jack also testified that defendant struck the side of the shed with the axe handle, 

causing Jack to fear that defendant might strike him as well. 

Jack described the following menacing exchange with defendant. According to 

Jack, defendant said, “ ‘I just walked by your car when I got here.’ ” Jack responded, 

“ ‘Jim, I’ve got insurance on the car.’ ” According to Jack, defendant replied, “ ‘You got 

insurance on your head?’ ” Defendant then threw Jack’s phone down and left the shed. 

Jack called 911. He told the 911 operator, “My name is Jack [], and I was just—I 

was just threatened with an axe handle by [defendant].” He also told the 911 operator 

that defendant and his brother “wanted [him] to sign some papers that said that they lived 

[t]here at the time of the fire.” Jack made a police report the next day. 

Linda Amader, an insurance claims adjuster with Allstate Insurance Company, 

testified for the prosecution as well.2 Amader recalled meeting with defendant and Ken 

2 There were other prosecution witnesses, but their testimony is not relevant to any issue 

on appeal. 
4

after the fire in March 2016. She understood from the meeting that defendant and Ken

lived at the property. Amader spoke with Donna three months later. Donna did not say 

anything about her brothers’ living arrangements. 

By February 2017, Amader had approved a $10,000 advance for the garage fire 

claims, but the claims were still pending. Amader explained that the advance would have 

been paid to Donna as executor of Bernice’s estate.3 

Amader testified that she spoke with Donna again in March or April of 2017. 

According to Amader, Donna told her that defendant and Ken had not lived in the house 

prior to Bernice’s death. This was significant, Amader explained, because the policy 

covered resident relatives of the named insured only, meaning that persons not living in 

the house prior to Bernice’s death would be excluded from coverage. Amader referred 

the matter to Allstate’s special investigations unit. Amader explained that the special 

investigations unit would investigate and determine whether fraud was suspected. If 

fraud was not suspected, the claim would return to Amader for payment. Amader 

testified that the garage fire claims had not been returned to her for payment. 

Defendant presented an alibi defense. Defendant’s former girlfriend, Tina, 

testified that defendant had been with her at her house on the night of the alleged 

confrontation. Armando, a neighbor, testified that he had been in a bedroom 

approximately 20 feet away from the shed and heard nothing that night. 

Ken testified he had arranged for Jack to stay in the shed, but the arrangement was 

only supposed to be temporary. Ken acknowledged meeting with Jack on February 12 or 

February 13, 2017, but said the purpose of the meeting was to let Jack know he needed to 

leave the shed. Ken denied presenting Jack with insurance papers or asking him to sign 

3 Amader explained that the public adjuster would have also been named as a payee on 

the check. 
5

anything. He intimated that Donna had misappropriated insurance money from the estate 

and suggested that Jack had conspired with Donna to effectuate this scheme. 

Defendant testified on his own behalf. Defendant claimed he had been with his 

girlfriend from February 12 through February 15, 2017. He denied Jack’s version of 

events, adding that he would have had no reason to ask Jack to verify that he had been 

living in the house, as Amader had never requested any such verification. According to 

defendant, Allstate had already processed his claim by February 2017, and was just about 

ready to pay it. Defendant explained that Allstate had already paid Ken’s claim, but 

Donna had intercepted the check. To avoid this, defendant said he instructed Allstate to 

place a hold on his check. Defendant estimated the payout would be approximately 

$40,000, and said he was confident he would be receiving the money “anytime.” 

B. Closing Arguments and Verdict

During closing arguments, both the prosecutor and defendant’s trial counsel, 

Attorney Robert McCann, framed the case as a credibility contest between Jack, on the 

one hand, and defendant, on the other. The prosecutor emphasized that Jack had 

consistently told the same story and had no stake in the insurance dispute and no reason 

to lie. McCann responded that Jack had a reason to lie because he wanted to continue 

living in the shed, and Donna would have allowed him to do that, but defendant and Ken 

would not. McCann urged the jury to accept the testimony of the defense witnesses over 

Jack. McCann also intimated that Donna failed to distribute insurance money, and 

defendant would be pursuing claims against Bernice’s estate. 

The jury returned a verdict after three hours and 15 minutes of deliberation. The 

jury found defendant guilty of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459—count one)4, 

making criminal threats (§ 422—count two), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, 

4 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
6

subd. (a)(1)—count three). The jury also found true that defendant personally used a 

deadly and dangerous weapon (an axe handle) in the commission of the offenses (§ 

12022, subd. (b)(1)). 

C. The New Trial Motion

After the jury returned the guilty verdict, defendant retained new counsel, and was 

later appointed counsel. Defendant’s appointed counsel, Assistant Public Defender John 

W.H. Stoller, filed a new trial motion asserting various claims, including ineffective 

assistance of counsel based on a failure to investigate. As relevant here, the motion 

argued that McCann should have interviewed John and obtained records from Allstate.5

The motion was supported by a declaration from defendant. Defendant averred 

that Donna and Jack had a special relationship, and Jack fabricated the alleged 

confrontation as part of a scheme to deprive defendant of insurance money. 

The motion was also supported by a declaration from Stoller, attaching witness 

interviews and correspondence from McCann’s pretrial investigation. Stoller opined that 

McCann should have done more to develop the defense theory that Donna conspired with 

Jack to prevent defendant from receiving insurance money. Among other things, Stoller 

opined that McCann should have interviewed John and obtained records from Allstate. 

Stoller’s declaration attached a witness statement from John, prepared after the 

trial by an investigator from the public defender’s office. The statement indicates that 

Donna struggled with alcohol. The statement also indicates that defendant lived in the 

house prior to Bernice’s death. Of greatest significance, the statement indicates that John 

would have testified as follows: “[Defendant] did not get any insurance money, but he 

did get money from the sale of the house. We split the money from the house evenly 

among the four siblings. [Defendant] did live at the house when the fire broke out, but 

5 The motion also argued that McCann should have interviewed Donna and obtained her 

bank records. Defendant does not renew these contentions on appeal. 
7

we lied and told the insurance company that he didn’t. Donna did not feel that 

[defendant] deserved any money from the fire. Donna never wanted [defendant] living at 

the house because he did not pay for a thing and only ran up the utility bill. Our parents 

would have never let him get away with something like that. That’s why this whole 

incident involving Jack took place. [Defendant] was trying to get Jack to sign a paper 

saying that he lived there. Jack refused to sign anything because he knew we didn’t want 

[defendant] to get any insurance money. Then [defendant] threatened Jack and he 

definitely wasn’t willing to sign anything.” Stoller’s declaration also attached records 

from Allstate, including a letter from an attorney suggesting that Donna had attempted to 

defraud the insurance company by making false claims for lost rent. 

The prosecution opposed the motion. The prosecution argued that McCann 

reasonably decided to present an alibi defense, rather than an insurance fraud defense. 

The prosecution observed that John’s statement “cuts both ways for the defense and 

prosecution,” inasmuch as John admitted conspiring with Donna and lying to the 

insurance company, but also indicated that defendant committed the charged offenses 

against Jack. The prosecution also argued that, even assuming McCann’s performance 

was deficient, defendant suffered no prejudice. 

The trial court heard argument and ruled from the bench. The trial court 

acknowledged that “additional evidence of the fraud may have generally strengthened the 

defendant’s case.” Nevertheless, the trial court implicitly found that a reasonable defense 

lawyer could have concluded that, “qualitatively the alibi evidence and, therefore, the 

evidence of [d]efendant’s innocence, provided a better strategic defense than in providing 

more of a challenge to the victim’s credibility.” With respect to John’s statement, the 

trial court observed: “Even if the jury absolutely believed that Donna and John engaged 

in insurance fraud, that does not mean that [d]efendant did not assault [Jack]. In fact, it 

could be perceived as a reason for the assault and that’s one of the things that the People 

were arguing. Defendant could have assaulted [Jack] out of frustration that was borne 
8

from Donna’s insurance fraud.” “But critically,” the trial court explained, “evidence of 

Donna’s insurance fraud really only has value if it’s connected to [Jack]’s motive to 

falsely accuse the defendant.” The trial court found that defendant failed to establish any 

such connection. 

The trial court observed there was no evidence that Donna imparted any financial 

consideration to Jack. As for the allegation that Donna and Jack had a special 

relationship, the trial court found it “odd that [Jack] would continue to live in the shed 

rather than in the main house with Donna when there’s spare bedrooms in the house at 

the time.” The trial court also reasoned that, given the absence of evidence connecting 

Donna and John’s fraud to Jack, “it may have been even more beneficial to leave the jury 

to speculate as to [Jack]’s motive to testify falsely rather than to provide evidence that 

[fails] to link [Jack] to the insurance fraud.” 

When all was said and done, the trial court found that McCann “offered a viable, 

absolute defense to the jury. And it can’t be said under the circumstances [that] his 

failure to present more evidence of a possible motive to lie . . . fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness. [¶] Also, it can’t be said that there is a reasonable 

probability [that] but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, if there were any, that a 

determination more favorable to the defendant would have resulted.” Accordingly, the 

trial court denied the motion. The trial court then sentenced defendant to three years 

eight months in state prison. This appeal timely followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid ground for a new trial. (People v. 

Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582-583.) Upon appeal from the denial of a new trial 

motion based on a claim of ineffective assistance, we defer to the trial court’s factual 

findings if supported by substantial evidence, and we exercise de novo review over the 
9

ultimate issue of whether defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. (People v. 

Taylor (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 720, 724-725.)

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show: 

(1) trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under 

prevailing professional norms; and (2) the defendant suffered prejudice, i.e., there is “a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 

687-688, 694.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome.” (Id. at p. 694.) “A defendant must prove prejudice that is a 

‘ “demonstrable reality,” not simply speculation.’ ” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 

Cal.4th 1223, 1241.)

In examining whether a defendant has met his burden under the first prong, we 

give great deference to counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions. (People v. Hinton (2006) 

37 Cal.4th 839, 876.) A defendant must establish that the challenged act or omission did 

not result from an informed tactical choice within the range of reasonable competence. 

(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425, disapproved on a different ground in People 

v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1081, fn. 10.) There is a strong presumption that 

counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and 

to rebut this presumption the record must affirmatively disclose that counsel had no 

rational tactical purpose for his or her act or omission. (Pope, supra, at p. 425; People v. 

Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254.) “[I]f the record contains no explanation for the 

challenged behavior, [the] court [must] reject the claim of ineffective assistance ‘unless 

counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply 

could be no satisfactory explanation.’ ” (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 623.)

To establish ineffective assistance based on an alleged failure to investigate, a 

defendant “must prove that counsel failed to make particular investigations and that the 

omissions resulted in the denial of or inadequate presentation of a potentially meritorious 
10

defense.” (In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1257.) “ ‘ “[S]trategic choices made after 

less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable 

professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel 

has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes 

particular investigations unnecessary.” ’ ” (In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1258.) 

Appellate courts must refrain from second-guessing trial counsel, since “ ‘ “[i]n any 

ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for 

reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to 

counsel’s judgments.” ’ ” (Ibid.)

We cannot say McCann was ineffective in failing to obtain records from Allstate. 

McCann could have reasonably believed that an alibi defense offered defendant a better 

chance of acquittal than any defense that might have been suggested by the Allstate 

records. An alibi defense would be easy for jurors to understand and would allow 

McCann to frame the case as a credibility contest between a single prosecution witness 

(Jack), on the one hand, and an array of defense witnesses (defendant, Ken, Tina, and 

Armando), on the other. An insurance-themed defense, by contrast, would require the 

jury to connect the dots between Donna’s dishonest dealings with Allstate and Jack’s 

allegations; a nexus that, even now, defies ready explanation. Even assuming McCann 

had reason to suspect Donna of attempting to defraud Allstate or breaching her fiduciary 

duties as executor, an experienced trial lawyer could reasonably anticipate that such 

discovery would be unlikely to meaningfully assist the defense. McCann made a 

reasonable tactical decision to focus on corroborating defendant’s alibi, rather than 

pursuing tangentially related records from Allstate. There was no ineffective assistance 

of counsel so far as the Allstate records are concerned.

McCann’s failure to interview John presents a closer question, but here too, we are 

satisfied that defendant received effective representation. As noted, John gave a 

statement to the public defender’s investigator acknowledging that he and Donna lied to 
11

Allstate about defendant’s living arrangements because Donna thought defendant should 

not receive any insurance money. Defendant argues McCann should have interviewed 

John and presented this testimony at trial. Had McCann done so, defendant urges, the 

jury would have had a basis for finding that Jack was also lying about defendant’s living 

arrangements. Jurors could have then inferred that Jack fabricated the assault allegations 

at Donna’s behest, in furtherance, somehow, of her scheme to deprive defendant of 

insurance money. Had McCann interviewed John, defendant concludes, evidence of 

Jack’s possible dishonesty would have been brought to light and could have tipped the 

balance in defendant’s favor. We are not persuaded.

John was not a percipient witness to any of the acts that formed the basis of the 

charges against defendant. At most, he would have been able to provide background 

information concerning the family’s insurance dispute. But there was no reason for 

McCann to believe that John’s perspective would have been especially helpful to the 

defense. McCann can be presumed to have known from defendant that Donna and John 

occupied one side of the family split, and defendant and Ken occupied the other. 

Knowing this, McCann could have reasonably expected that John would be hostile to the 

defense. That expectation would have been confirmed by the prosecution’s apparent 

decision to name John as a possible witness.6 Armed with an understanding of the 

family’s contentious history and dynamics, McCann could have reasonably anticipated 

that John would undermine defendant’s cause, rather than advance it. McCann was not 

ineffective for failing to interview John.7

6 We have not been provided the prosecution’s witness list; however, defendant’s 

opening brief indicates that John “was listed by the People as a possible witness at trial.” 

7 We note in passing that defendant’s declaration identifies several leads McCann should 

have pursued but does not suggest that he should have interviewed John. 
12

But even assuming McCann’s investigation was inadequate, we would find no 

prejudice. Assuming that John’s testimony would have been consistent with his 

statement, the jury would have heard that Donna and John lied to Allstate, and defendant 

responded by demanding that Jack sign papers, and making threats about what would 

happen if he refused. Had McCann interviewed John and presented this testimony, he 

might have succeeded in challenging Jack’s credibility on a minor issue (whether 

defendant lived in the house), but he would have bolstered Jack’s credibility on a major 

issue (whether defendant threatened Jack and demanded that he signed papers), thereby

doing defendant more harm than good.8 McCann could have reasonably anticipated that 

John’s testimony would not be worth the risk, and there would be little to be gained from 

interviewing him.

Defendant observes that the alibi and insurance-themed defenses were not

mutually exclusive, and McCann could have pursued both avenues of investigation. 

Defendant’s defenses may have been logically compatible, but that does not mean 

McCann had the ability to vigorously pursue both. “Resources are limited, and trial 

counsel must eventually shift from pretrial investigation to trial preparation.” (Campbell 

v. Reardon (7th Cir. 2015) 780 F.3d 752, 765.) Nothing in the record suggests McCann 

was unaware of the insurance dispute or refused to consider using the dispute to 

defendant’s advantage. To the contrary, the record reveals that McCann alluded to 

8 Defendant seems to believe that John’s testimony would have dealt a devastating blow 

to Jack’s credibility. We are not so sure. Jack’s testimony suggested that neither Ken nor 

defendant lived in the house at the time of the alleged assault. John’s statement raised an 

inference that defendant did not live in the house at the time of the fire. Both 

propositions could have been true, and both could have been reconciled with other 

evidence that defendant stayed there sometimes but was not living there regularly at the 

time of Bernice’s death. 
13

Donna’s schemes in closing argument and suggested that Jack’s allegiance to Donna gave 

him a reason to lie. But McCann could have reasonably viewed the insurance squabble 

as a side issue, which was only tangentially related to the ultimate question of guilt or 

innocence. And, though credibility was a key issue, McCann could have reasonably 

believed that defendant’s credibility would be more meaningfully bolstered by 

corroborating his alibi, rather than pursuing evidence that could prove him right about an 

ancillary issue. We decline to second-guess McCann’s allocation of investigative 

resources. (In re Thomas, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1264, fn. 4 [“Courts must be careful not 

to second-guess resource allocation; it is for counsel to decide what leads are or are not 

worth exploring”].)

On the record before us, we cannot say that McCann’s focus on defendant’s alibi 

defense was anything other than an informed tactical choice. It follows that defendant 

has failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel, or any abuse of discretion in the 

denial of his motion for a new trial.

B. Sufficiency of Evidence of Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Next, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction 

for assault with a deadly weapon. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to 

determine whether it discloses substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings. 

(People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241.) We conclude substantial evidence 

supports the jury’s verdict.

Section 245, subdivision (a)(1) punishes assaults committed “with a deadly 

weapon or instrument other than a firearm.”9 As used in the statute, the term “ ‘ “deadly 

9

 Section 245, subdivision (a)(1) provides in full: “Any person who commits an assault 

upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm shall 

be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a 
14

weapon” is “any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be 

capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury.” ’ ” (In re B.M. 

(2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 532-533 (B.M.).) Section 245, subdivision (a)(1) contemplates two 

categories of deadly weapons. Objects such as dirks and blackjacks are deadly weapons 

as a matter of law because their ordinary use establishes their character as such. (Id. at p. 

533.) Other objects, while not deadly per se, may be used in a manner likely to produce 

death or great bodily injury. (Ibid.) An axe handle cannot be considered an inherently 

deadly or dangerous weapon. (Cf. People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6 [“Because a 

knife can be, and usually is, used for innocent purposes, it is not among the few objects 

that are inherently deadly weapons”].) Whether an object that is not inherently deadly or 

dangerous was used as a deadly weapon is a question of fact for the jury. (People v. 

Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028.)

Our Supreme Court established guidelines for determining whether a noninherently dangerous object—such as a knife—was used in a manner likely to produce 

death or great bodily injury in B.M. (B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at pp. 533-536.) There, 17-

year old B.M. used a three-inch butter knife with a dull tip and serrated edge to scare her 

sister, Sophia. (Id. at p. 531.) When Sophia saw B.M. approaching with the butter knife, 

she covered herself with a blanket. (Ibid.) B.M. made several downward slicing motions 

with the knife in the area near Sophia’s blanketed legs. (Ibid.) Although the butter knife 

made contact with Sophia’s legs, the knife neither pierced the blanket nor caused injury 

to Sophia. (Ibid.) 

The juvenile court found B.M.’s use of the butter knife violated section 245, 

subdivision (a)(1), and the court of appeal affirmed. (B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 530.) 

Our Supreme Court reversed, announcing three principles to be applied in such cases. 

county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars 

($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.” 
15

(Id. at pp. 530, 533-536.) “First,” the court explained, “the object alleged to be a deadly 

weapon must be used in a manner that is not only ‘capable of producing’ but also ‘ “likely 

to produce death or great bodily injury.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 533.) This requires more than a 

mere possibility that serious injury could have resulted from the object used. (Ibid.)

Second, conjecture as to how the object might have been used is not permitted. 

(B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 534.) “Rather, the determination of whether an object is a 

deadly weapon under section 245[, subdivision ](a)(1) must rest on evidence of how the 

defendant actually ‘used’ the object.” (Ibid.) Although “it is inappropriate to consider 

how the object could have been used as opposed to how it was actually used,” the 

Supreme Court explained, “it is appropriate in the deadly weapon inquiry to consider 

what harm could have resulted from the way the object was actually used. Analysis of 

whether the defendant’s manner of using the object was likely to produce death or great 

bodily injury necessarily calls for an assessment of potential harm in light of the 

evidence. As noted, a mere possibility of serious injury is not enough. But the evidence 

may show that serious injury was likely, even if it did not come to pass.” (Id. at p. 535, 

italics added.) 

Third, “limited injury or lack of injury may suggest that the nature of the object or 

the way it was used was not capable of producing or likely to produce death or serious 

harm.” (B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 535.) Nevertheless, an aggravated assault conviction 

does not require proof of any injury or even physical contact. (Ibid.) 

Applying these principles, we conclude substantial evidence supports the jury’s 

determination that defendant used the axe handle as a deadly weapon in a manner likely 

to produce great bodily injury under section 245, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant burst into 

the shed holding an axe handle in his upraised hand. The axe handle was composed of 

wood or hard plastic, and was approximately three feet long, and three inches in 

diameter. Defendant stood two or three feet from Jack and swung the axe handle, hitting 

the side of the small shed, and producing a loud noise. The jury could reasonably infer 
16

that the axe handle was capable of inflicting serious injury when swung with sufficient 

force, within close range of another person. (See People v. McCullin (1971) 19 

Cal.App.3d 795, 801 [“baseball bat can be a deadly weapon because of the manner in 

which it is used” for purpose of probation condition]; People v. Jaramillo (1979) 98 

Cal.App.3d 830, 835 [wooden stick 18 to 20 inches long and one inch in diameter was 

deadly weapon for purpose of weapon enhancement].) Both the nature of the axe handle 

and the manner in which it was used suggest that great bodily injury was likely. (See 

B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 533.) 

Defendant makes much of the fact that he did not make contact with Jack. 

However, the actual occurrence of great bodily injury is not required for a conviction 

under section 245, subdivision (a)(1). (People v. Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1028 

[“One may commit an assault without making actual physical contact with the person of 

the victim; because the statute focuses on use of a deadly weapon or instrument or, 

alternatively, on force likely to produce great bodily injury, whether the victim in fact 

suffers any harm is immaterial”].) Defendant also points to Jack’s testimony that, 

“thinking back,” he was not sure whether defendant was trying to strike him or only scare 

him. However, Jack clarified that he believed in the moment that defendant would 

“probably” hit him, given their close proximity in a confined space and defendant’s 

threats to “ ‘bash [his] fucking head in.’ ” The jury was free to credit Jack’s testimony 

that defendant used the axe handle in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury, 

despite Jack’s doubts as to what defendant may have intended. 

From the way that defendant wielded the axe handle, we conclude there was more 

than a mere possibility that Jack would have suffered serious bodily injury had defendant 

struck him while swinging the bludgeon in a small, confined space. The record thus 

contains substantial evidence that defendant used the axe handle in a manner that was 

both capable of producing and likely to produce serious bodily injury. 
17

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

MURRAY, J.