Opinion ID: 2624500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assertedly Insufficient Evidence of Unadjudicated Assault on Sheriff's Deputies

Text: William Hanson and Johnnie Christiansen, deputies at the San Diego County Jail, each testified to the events of the morning of October 8, 1980, when defendant refused to get out of bed and come to court. When the deputies entered his cell, defendant rolled over, looked at [the deputies], and then pulled the blanket back up over his head. When Hanson pulled off the blanket, defendant immediately stood up ... kind of backed in the corner and faced us and brought his arms and fists in a ... fighting stance with his fists doubled up, leading Hanson to believe defendant was about to strike him. Christiansen testified defendant stated, If you want ... me to go to court you're going to have to take me to court. The deputies grabbed defendant, forced him out of the cell and up against a wall, and placed waist and leg chains on him. Defendant resisted their efforts to take him out of the cell and struggled as violently as he could. Christiansen remembered it as an extraordinary event and an instantaneous confrontation. He stated that no fight occurred because we didn't allow that to occur ... we gained control of him and moved him out of the cell. Christiansen testified that there was no question at the time that had we not [grabbed his arms] ... there would have been a fight that transpired. As the deputies led defendant down the hall, he resisted and spat on Hanson's face. Defendant sought to exclude any argument or instructions regarding the crime of assault as related to the incident with Deputies Hanson and Christiansen, arguing the evidence presented was insufficient to establish an assault as a factor in aggravation under section 190.3, factor (b), which requires a showing of criminal activity involving the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. He argued that because he did not throw any punches or otherwise attempt to strike the deputies, his resistance to them was limited to the use of profanity and assuming a fighting stance, neither of which, he argues, was sufficient to constitute an assault. The court determined the evidence was not the strongest case[] of assault that one could imagine, but I think there's some substantial evidence there based on what a reasonable juror would find and permitted the prosecutor to argue it to the jury. The court instructed the jurors on the definitions of both assault and battery, and instructed further that no juror could consider such evidence unless first convinced of its truth beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant now renews his argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish an assault. He also argues for the first time on appeal that the evidence of battery was only speculative and the court, therefore, erred in admitting any evidence of the event at all. Because defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of battery at trial, and did not object to the evidence when it was introduced, he may not do so now for the first time on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Benavides, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 92.) In any event, we see no error. The evidence that defendant spat upon Deputy Hanson was sufficient for jurors to find defendant committed a battery, or any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. (§ 242; see People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 961 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571] [throwing a cup of urine in a person's face is a battery].) The evidence was also sufficient for the jurors to find defendant committed an assault, or an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. (§ 240.) Defendant leaped out of bed in a confrontational manner, raised his fists, took a fighting stance, informed the deputies that he would go to court only if they took him, and struggled violently as the deputies extracted him from the cell, all of which led both deputies to testify that the only reason there had not been an actual fight was because they secured defendant's arms before he could strike them. A reasonable interpretation of this evidence would be that in the moments before the deputies could secure him defendant attempted, and had the present ability, to commit a violent injury on the deputies.