Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1258984.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 16:07:13
Document Index: 497543150

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20024500', '§\u20024502', '§\u2002667', '§\u20024500', '§\u20024500', '§\u20024500']

PEOPLE v. JETER | FindLaw
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerome Gene JETER, Defendant and Appellant.
No. D042551.
Jerome P. Wallingford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson and Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorneys General, Robert M. Foster and Pamela A. Ratner Sobeck, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
A jury convicted Jeter of assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence (Pen.Code, § 4500) 2 and possession of a stabbing weapon while in custody (§ 4502, subd. (a)). The court found Jeter had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i), 1170.12.) The court sentenced Jeter for to 25 years to life for the assault and stayed the sentence for possession under section 654. Jeter contends (1) the court committed reversible error by instructing with CALJIC Nos. 1.22 and 3.30, and by failing to modify CALJIC No. 9.00; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument; and (3) the abstract of judgment must be amended to conform to the court's sentence. We agree the court committed reversible error by giving conflicting jury instructions as to assault by a life prisoner (§ 4500) and reverse the conviction for that offense. In all other respects, we affirm.
Jeter's first trial ended in a mistrial on March 14, 2003 because the jury could not reach a verdict. This trial began on May 6, 2003.
Abdulmalik Saafir, a chaplain at Calipatria State Prison, testified that on May 29, 2001 about 11:00 a.m., he was in the C yard waiting for the chapel to be opened. An inmate named Hassan approached him to tell him he would not go to the service. During the conversation, a bald African-American man with a Fu Manchu beard wearing prison blues and sunglasses, walked behind Hassan, “socked” him, and continued walking.3 Saafir immediately said, “No playing out here.” Hassan then grabbed his back and said, “That guy just stuck me.” Saafir kept his eye on the man, who quickly walked towards a gate near the program office and tossed an object through the gate. The man looked like Jeter although Saafir could not make a positive identification at trial.
Seidel testified Saafir pointed out the attacker, who Seidel identified as Jeter. Seidel handcuffed and searched Jeter and then had someone take Jeter to the program office for questioning. After Jeter waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, Seidel asked him if he had assaulted Hassan. Jeter calmly answered, “Yes.” Seidel then asked, “Why did you assault Inmate Hassan with a weapon?” Jeter responded, “It was a personal disrespect issue.” Seidel explained that because respect is very important to inmates, inmates take insults very seriously and deal personally with people who insult them.
Registered nurse Scott Blackman testified that he examined Hassan, who had sustained a wound in his lower right flank, near his kidney. The wound was about one to one and one-half inches long, one-half inch wide and two to four inches deep. After Blackman applied a pressure bandage to the wound and took Hassan's vital signs, he called an ambulance because wounds near kidneys can be “very dangerous.” Blackman also examined Jeter and did not find any blood on his hands or clothing.
Jeter contends the court committed reversible error by instructing with CALJIC Nos. 1.22 and 3.30, and by failing to make certain modifications to CALJIC No. 9.00 because these instructions conflict with the specific intent requirement for assault by a life prisoner (§ 4500).
Section 4500 provides in part: “Every person while undergoing a life sentence, who is sentenced to state prison within this state, and who, with malice aforethought, commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is punishable with death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.” (Italics added.)
The court instructed with a modified version of CALJIC No. 8.11, which defines malice aforethought, and with CALJIC No. 1.22, which defines malice as “a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act.” However, malice and malice aforethought are not synonymous. (People v. Sekona (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 443, 453, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 606.) Malice aforethought as used in section 4500 has the same meaning as it has for murder convictions, requiring either an intent to kill or “knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.” (People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 536-537, 83 Cal.Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390; People v. Chacon (1968) 69 Cal.2d 765, 780-781, 73 Cal.Rptr. 10, 447 P.2d 106; CALJIC No. 8.11) For that reason, courts should not instruct with CALJIC No. 1.22 when a defendant is charged with violating section 4500. (St. Martin, supra, at pp. 536-537, 83 Cal.Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390.) Accordingly, the court erred.
“1. A person was assaulted;
“2. The assault was committed [with a deadly weapon or instrument] [or] [by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury];
“3. The assault was committed by a person while undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, having been sentenced to life imprisonment within this state; and
“4. The assault was committed with malice aforethought.”
The use note to CALJIC No. 7.35 requires the court to instruct with CALJIC No. 9.00, which defines assault. However, unlike section 4500, assault requires only general intent and does not require intent to harm. (People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 214-215, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 865 P.2d 704.) Specifically, CALJIC No. 9.00 states, “However, an assault does not require an intent to cause injury to another person, or an actual awareness of the risk that injury might occur to another person.” This sentence directly contradicts the requirement of malice aforethought and must be removed when CALJIC No. 9.00 is given to accompany CALJIC No. 7.35. Further, CALJIC No. 9.00's use note requires the court to instruct with CALJIC No. 3.30 4 on the concurrence of act and general criminal intent even though section 4500 requires the specific intent of malice aforethought.5
Here, the jury was given conflicting instructions. CALJIC Nos. 9.00 and 3.30 required the jury to find general intent. CALJIC Nos. 7.35 and 3.31.5 6 required the jury to find the specific intent of malice aforethought. Additionally, the jury was instructed as to both malice aforethought and simple malice.
Conflicting instructions or instructions that misdescribe an element of an offense are harmless “only if ‘it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is ․ to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.’ '' People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 774, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485; see also People v. Maurer (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1128-1129, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 335.) On this record of conflicting instructions, it is impossible to know the jurors unanimously found Jeter committed the offense with malice aforethought. We therefore reverse the section 4500 conviction because we cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that these conflicting instructions did not contribute to the verdict obtained. In view of the reversal, we need not address Jeter's unopposed contention that the abstract of judgment must be amended to conform to the court's sentence.
II. Prosecutorial Misconduct *
We reverse the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner (§ 4500). We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
3. Inmates are not allowed to run in the yard.
4. CALJIC No. 3.30 was properly given as to count 2, possession of a weapon by a prisoner.
5. The use note to CALJIC No. 9.00 should be changed to make it clear that CALJIC No. 3.30 should not be given for section 4500 offenses.
6. CALJIC No. 3.31.05 requires the union of the act and a certain mental state, although the instruction given in this case did not specify malice aforethought as that mental state.
WE CONCUR: AARON and IRION, JJ.