Opinion ID: 2625366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Weapon Possession in Jail

Text: Defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury, pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.87, that evidence had been introduced to show defendant committed murder, assault with a firearm, and possession of a weapon in jail, which offenses involve the express or implied use of force or violence or the threat of force or violence under Texas Penal Code section 190.3. With respect to the instruction's reference to assault with a firearm, defendant assumes it refers to the inconclusive evidence of his possible involvement in a 1978 shooting at a Texas apartment, an incident we agree did not qualify as aggravating evidence. ( Ante, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 664-665, 74 P.3d at pp. 761-762.) But as the Attorney General points out, the instruction was an appropriate reference to defendant's 1988 armed assault on apartment owner Pluim. Because the instruction further required the jury to find each aggravating offense occurred beyond a reasonable doubt before considering it, it is inconceivable the jury counted the 1978 Texas apartment incident as a significant aggravating factor, or that the instruction affected the verdict. Defendant also complains of the instruction's reference to his possible weapon possession in jail because no evidence was admitted showing he actually or impliedly threatened anyone. But as we previously observed ( ante, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d pp. 663-664, 74 P.3d p. 761), mere possession of a potentially dangerous weapon in custody involves an implied threat of violence under Texas Penal Code section 190.3. The instruction properly submitted defendant's weapon possession to the jury as a possible aggravating factor.