Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Instructions on Assault With a Deadly Weapon

Text: Defendant argues that improperly given instructions lowered below the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard the prosecution's burden of proof on the charge of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), a general intent crime ( People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 214, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 865 P.2d 704), on Linda C, Stephanie C.'s mother. We disagree. In addition to arguments-we rejected in the previous section, defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving circumstantial evidence instructions. He maintains in essence that the court should have included sua sponte the assault with a deadly weapon count when giving a version of CALJIC No. 2.02 but failed to do so, omitting that count and instead, with regard to it, instructing on circumstantial evidence with CALJIC No. 2.01. CALJIC No. 2.01 ... instructs on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove a defendant's guilt, whereas CALJIC No. 2.02 ... instructs more specifically on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove a defendant's specific intent or mental state. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1141, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) [T]here is no need to give CALJIC No. 2.02 when the trial court gives a more inclusive instruction based upon CALJIC No. 2.01, unless the only element of the offense that rests substantially or entirely upon circumstantial evidence is that of specific intent or mental state. ( People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 347, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) Defendant asserts that, notwithstanding the first quoted part of Hughes, he was entitled to a sua sponte instruction that included the assault with a deadly weapon count in the CALJIC No. 2.02-based instruction due to the exact nature of the evidence in this case. We need not resolve this question. Because the trial court delivered the more inclusive instruction under CALJIC No. 2.01, its refusal to additionally instruct with CALJIC No. 2.02 was not prejudicial error. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1142, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.)