Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failing to Instruct on Elements of Crime Constituting Prior Violent Conduct or to Instruct on Assault

Text: At the penalty phase, the prosecution introduced evidence of prior violent criminal conduct. The court instructed the jury that the evidence was introduced to show that defendant violated section 273d, which the court defined as cruel or inhuman bodily injury on a child which involved the express use of force. As the parties were discussing the language of this instruction, defendant said he'd just as soon have the 245  i.e., have the jury instructed on assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). But the court found section 273d to be a better fit and did not instruct on assault. Defendant did not ask the court to instruct the jury on the elements of section 273d. He contends that the court erred  he does not specify under what statutory or constitutional regime  in failing to define the elements of section 273d sua sponte. As he concedes, we have rejected that claim ( People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 48-49), and we continue to do so. (56) He also contends that the court should have instructed the jury in the language of assault rather than cruel or inhuman bodily injury on a child.... He argues that the latter definition was inflammatory and violated the Eighth Amendment because it created a risk that the penalty would be arbitrarily decided. The parties point us to no case in which this question has previously been raised, and we have been unable to locate any. Assuming that defendant's comment registered an objection, there was no error, because there was substantial evidence that defendant violated section 273d and, as a matter of law, simply providing the definition of an offense supported by substantial evidence cannot unduly inflame a trier of fact.