People v. Aledamat
Decision Date | 26 August 2019 |
Docket Number | S248105 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Yazan ALEDAMAT, Defendant and Appellant. |
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Edward C. DuMont, State Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Mercer, Timothy L. O'Hair and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, and Michael R. Johnsen, Deputy State Solicitor General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mary K. McComb, State Public Defender, Barry P. Helft, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, and Samuel Weiscovitz, Deputy State Public Defender, as Amici Curiae.
Defendant Yazan Aledamat was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. A few objects are inherently deadly weapons. Others, including a box cutter, are deadly weapons only if used in a way that makes them deadly weapons. Here, the trial court erroneously permitted the jury to consider the box cutter an inherently deadly weapon. It presented the jury with two possible theories of guilt: (1) that the box cutter was inherently deadly, and (2) that defendant used the box cutter in a deadly way. The first of these theories was erroneous under the facts. A box cutter is, as a matter of law, not inherently deadly. The second theory was correct. We must decide what standard of review applies to this error.
We conclude the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of review established in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ( Chapman ) for federal constitutional error applies. The reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. On this record, applying this standard, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which found the error prejudicial.
The Court of Appeal opinion summarized the facts. ( People v. Aledamat (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1151-1152, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 ( Aledamat ).)
As relevant to the issue on review, the People charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and making a criminal threat under Penal Code section 422.1 As to the threat charge, the People also alleged that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The case went to a jury trial.
The court instructed the jury that, for the assault charge, the People had to prove the following: "The defendant did an act with a deadly weapon other than a firearm that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to say [sic ] person; the defendant did that act willfully; when the defendant acted, he was aware of facts 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; and when the defendant acted, he had the present ability to apply force with a deadly weapon other than a firearm to a person." (See CALCRIM No. 875.)
The court defined "a deadly weapon" as "any object, instrument, or weapon that is inherently deadly or one that is used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or ... great bodily injury." (See CALCRIM No. 875.) Regarding the weapon enhancement, the court instructed that (See CALCRIM No. 3145.) The court did not define what "inherently" deadly or dangerous meant.
In his opening argument to the jury, the prosecutor argued that the box cutter was a "deadly weapon" because "[i]f used in a way to cause harm, it would cause harm." Emphasizing the word "probably," defense counsel argued that defendant's act would not probably result in the application of force to the victim. Defense counsel did not specifically discuss whether the box cutter was a deadly weapon. In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the box cutter was an "inherently deadly weapon," noting that "you wouldn't want your children playing with" it.
The jury convicted defendant of both counts and found the weapon allegation true. The court sentenced defendant to prison, and he appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction for making a criminal threat. But it reversed the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon and the true finding on the weapon allegation. It found that the trial court erroneously permitted the jury to find the box cutter to be an inherently deadly weapon. It believed the error required it to reverse the conviction " ‘absent a basis in the record to find that the verdict was actually based on a valid ground,’ " which "exists only when the jury has ‘actually ’ relied upon the valid theory." ( Aledamat , supra , 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 1153, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 771.) It found "no basis in the record for concluding that the jury relied on the alternative definition of ‘deadly weapon’ (that is, the definition looking to how a noninherently dangerous weapon was actually used)." ( Id . at p. 1154, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 771.)
The Court of Appeal added that ( Aledamat , supra , 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 1154, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 771.)
We granted the Attorney General's petition for review to determine the standard of review of error of this kind, and to determine whether the error was prejudicial under this standard.
The jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and, as to the criminal threat charge, it found true that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The court instructed the jury that a weapon could be either inherently deadly or deadly in the way defendant used it. The instruction accurately stated the law. However, as the parties agree, the evidence did not support the instruction.
( People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 655, 945 P.2d 1204 ; accord, People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 416 P.3d 42.)
Because a knife can be, and usually is, used for innocent purposes, it is not among the few objects that are inherently deadly weapons. "While a knife is not an inherently dangerous or deadly instrument as a matter of law, it may assume such characteristics, depending upon the manner in which it was used ...." ( People v. McCoy (1944) 25 Cal.2d 177, 188, 153 P.2d 315.) "A box cutter is a type of knife" that, "because it is designed to cut things and not people," is not an inherently deadly weapon as a matter of law under McCoy . ( Aledamat , supra , 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 1153, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 ; see People v. Stutelberg (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 314, 317, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 156 ( Stutelberg ) [ ].)2
Accordingly, as the Court of Appeal held in this case, and as the court in Stutelberg , ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Montelongo
...Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 61-62, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468 ( Green ), disapproved on another ground in People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 371, 447 P.3d 277 ; see also People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 500-501, 244 Cal.Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803.) "[T]o find tru......
-
People v. Gentile
...a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. ( People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 371, 447 P.3d 277.) We "must reverse the conviction unless, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and consider......
-
People v. Cardenas
...17 L.Ed.2d 705 ( Chapman ).8 ( Canizales, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 614, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 370, 442 P.3d 686 ; Aledamat, supra , 8 Cal.5th at p. 13, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 371, 447 P.3d 277.) We conclude that it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Chapman, supra , 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 8......
-
In re In re Dupree Antoine Glass On Habeas Corpus
...stringent test" applies. ( Canizales , at p. 615, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 370, 442 P.3d 686.) The Supreme Court in People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 371, 447 P.3d 277, has now resolved that question, holding "alternative-theory error is subject to the more general Chapman h......