Opinion ID: 2832196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assault Convictions

Text: Creech was convicted of assault with a firearm under California Penal Code section 245(a)(2): “Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a firearm shall be punished . . . .” The Code defines assault as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” Id. § 240. Present ability to injure under California law exists when a defendant “has attained the means and location to strike 12 CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM immediately.” People v. Chance, 44 Cal. 4th 1164, 1174 (2008). An intended victim’s “effective steps to avoid injury ha[ve] never been held to negate this present ability.” Id.; see also People v. Raivart, 93 Cal. App. 4th 258, 267 (2007) (holding that “the fact that [the target] may have been sheltered, in whole or in part, by [a] building did not preclude [a] jury from finding defendant had the present ability to injure him”). Further, present ability does not require actually pointing the weapon in someone’s direction, as “[t]hat degree of immediacy is not necessary.” Chance, 44 Cal. 4th at 1176. However, “[a]bsent any evidence that the gun was loaded, or that [a defendant] attempted or threatened to use it as a bludgeon, there [i]s no proof of assault with a firearm.” People v. Beleke, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1463 (1995), disapproved of on other grounds by People v. Rodriguez, 20 Cal. 4th 1, 13–14 (1999). Creech argues that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the present ability element because his gun was loaded with bird shot, which could not have injured anyone inside the house. He argues that there was no evidence that the bird shot entered the house, and no evidence that, if the pellets entered the house, they would have carried enough force to strike a person. California’s appellate courts have encountered arguments similar to Creech’s. In People v. Valdez, the defendant shot at a gas station attendant who was not hit by the bullet because he was behind bulletproof glass. 175 Cal. App. 3d 103, 107 (1985). Valdez argued that the bulletproof glass negated his present ability to apply physical force required for assault with a firearm. Id. at 108. The court explained that “[o]nce a defendant has attained the means and location to strike immediately he has the ‘present ability to injure.’” Id. CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM 13 at 113. Further, “the fact an intended victim takes effective steps to avoid injury has never been held to negate this ‘present ability.’” Id.; see also Chance, 44 Cal. 4th at 1173–74 (adopting this interpretation as “sound”). Because Valdez had a loaded gun that was fully operational, because he actually fired three times in the victim’s direction, and because the victim was “easily within striking distance,” the court had “no difficulty finding what appellant did indeed satisfied this element.” Valdez, 175 Cal. App. 3d at 113. The court of appeal’s discussion of Creech’s actions is consistent with Valdez and Chance. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Creech of assault with a firearm. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court noted that Creech had attained the means and location “to inflict serious injury . . . when he fired his shotgun at his father-in-law’s home while he was standing 45 feet from the door.” It reasoned that all those who were inside the house were in harm’s way during the shooting, and it was “providential,” rather than determinative, that no one was hurt. Further, there was evidence that bird shot is capable of penetrating human tissue, and therefore the court rejected the analogy to the unloaded gun cases. See, e.g., Chance, 44 Cal. 4th at 1172 n.7 (stating that “assault cannot be committed with [an] unloaded gun, unless the weapon is used as bludgeon”). Creech, the court concluded, had the present ability to injure Jennifer, Sofia, and Julianne. Thus, it was not objectively unreasonable for the court of appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to prove present ability. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324; Parker, 132 S. Ct. at 2152. Creech also argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that “[w]hen [Creech] acted, [he] was aware of facts 14 CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM that would lead a reasonable person to realize that [his] act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone.” Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Insts. No. 875 (“CALCRIM”);5 see also People v. Wyatt, 48 Cal. 4th 776, 779 (2010) (explaining this “reasonable person” requirement). He points to the locked gate, the absence of cars that were normally there, and the lack of any movement in or near the home. However, he testified that he saw cars at his father-in-law’s home on the morning of the shooting. Further, as the district court noted, he took “no steps to ascertain that the house was unoccupied.” Failing to take any such steps may have been particularly unreasonable given that Creech knew he had poor vision and did not wear his glasses that day. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the court of appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that a reasonable person would have been alerted to the presence of people in the home.6 In sum, it was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law for the court of appeal to hold that there was sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to convict Creech on each count of assault with a firearm. 5 The jury instructions given at trial conform with CALCRIM 875 (2015). 6 Creech also argues that, because no one was actually injured, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of assault with a firearm. One may commit assault, however, even where a victim suffers no physical injury. People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal. 4th 1023, 1028 (1997). CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM 15