People v. Medellin
Decision Date | 20 February 2020 |
Docket Number | F076022 |
Citation | 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867,45 Cal.App.5th 519 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Samuel Trinidad MEDELLIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Samuel Medellin challenges his convictions for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, and their accompanying enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury. We agree with Medellin that the prosecutor prejudicially misstated the law during closing arguments. Our conclusion necessarily finds fault in the CALCRIM instructions defining great bodily injury. The convictions are reversed.
While Medellin and his friends were at a brewery restaurant one evening, an argument regarding alcohol service ensued between his party and the restaurant staff. The argument became a melee during which Medellin hit two different staff members, one time each.
The first victim suffered a quarter-to half-inch-long cut along his jaw requiring three stitches to close. This injury resulted from a punch.1 While the victim testified he previously had experienced "worse injuries," he described this injury as "hurt[ing] for a few days," resulting in "a little scar," and his "false tooth ... [feeling] a little bit loose after" the impact.
The second victim endured a quarter-inch-long cut on his lip requiring seven stitches to close. This injury also resulted from a punch. The victim described the injury as leaving his lip "swollen for about a week and a half," "hurt[ing] a lot," and scarring. A witness described the injury as "fairly deep" and "bleeding pretty severely."
The jury found Medellin guilty as charged: two counts of felony assault ( Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ),2 each with a great bodily injury enhancement found true (§ 12022.7). The trial court placed Medellin on probation and ordered him to serve one year in county jail, suspended on the condition he successfully completes probation.
This appeal presents three issues. One, did the trial court err by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault? Two, are the convictions and enhancements supported by sufficient evidence? And three, did the prosecutor prejudicially misstate the law?
We first find that if the trial erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense, Medellin waived the error. Second, sufficient evidence supports each verdict. Third, we find the prosecutor's closing argument, relying on and quoting CALCRIM's great bodily injury definition, prejudicially misstated the law and reverse the convictions.
During a preliminary discussion regarding potential jury instructions, the following colloquy occurred:
Consequently, the court did not instruct the jury on any lesser included offenses.
Medellin now faults the court for not instructing the jury on the lesser included offenses of simple assault. (§ 240.) The People argue the evidence did not warrant instructions on lesser included offenses and, alternatively, that Medellin waived the issue by inviting the court to err. Medellin counters that the invited error doctrine cannot apply to this issue.
We need not decide whether the evidence warranted lesser included offense instructions because we find that Medellin waived the issue by inviting any error.
It is clear that the instructional error claim at issue here "may be waived" if counsel causes the error and "clearly [does] so for tactical reasons."3 ( Souza, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 114, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419, 277 P.3d 118.) Those circumstances are present and accordingly we find Medellin waived any error.4
Medellin asks us to ignore Souza, supra , 54 Cal.4th 90, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419, 277 P.3d 118, and find the invited error doctrine does not apply to this issue. He argues the claim cannot be forfeited and cites the following language: " ‘ "The obligation to instruct on lesser included offenses exists even when as a matter of trial tactics a defendant not only fails to request the instruction but expressly objects to its being given." ’ " ( Souza, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 114, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419, 277 P.3d 118, quoting Breverman, supra , 19 Cal.4th at p. 154, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) We decline the invitation for two reasons.
First, Medellin asks us to infer the Supreme Court in Souza, supra , 54 Cal.4th 90, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419, 277 P.3d 118, did not "spend a great deal of time" discussing the issue because it was a "death penalty case[ ]." Our courts conscientiously consider each issue in every case. We believe Souza, supra , is correct and are bound to follow its logic. ( Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937 ( Auto Equity ); Bell, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 109, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102 [].)
Second, our conclusion is consistent with the rule requiring trial courts to "instruct on lesser included offenses ... even when" the defense "expressly objects to" the instruction ( Souza, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 114, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419, 277 P.3d 118 ) because "the rule seeks the most accurate possible judgment by ‘ensur[ing] that the jury will consider the full range of possible verdicts ’ included in the charge, regardless of the parties' wishes or tactics." ( Breverman, supra , 19 Cal.4th at p. 155, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) "Just as the People have no legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of a greater offense than that established by the evidence, a defendant has no right to an acquittal when that evidence is sufficient to establish a lesser included offense." ( Ibid. ) Allowing the defense to cause the error, lose at trial, and automatically obtain a reversal on appeal would reward the defense's failed gambit and eliminate the rule's purpose.5
Medellin next contends the evidence for both convictions and each enhancement was insufficient. The reviewing standard is well settled.
( People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 323, 190 P.3d 664.)
Applying these standards, we find sufficient evidence supports each conviction and enhancement. Medellin's contrary contention is rejected.
Medellin punched the first victim's jaw, creating a laceration requiring three stitches at a hospital to close. The stitches were removed at the hospital three weeks later. The only evidence in the record reasonably, credibly, and directly describing the force with which Medellin hit the victim was the victim's testimony that the impact was "a little bit harder" than preceding attacks from other people. The force behind Medellin's strike lacerated the victim's jaw, while other preceding, less forceful impacts, left no visible injury.
Medellin punched the second victim near the mouth. The victim's lip immediately "split open," requiring seven stitches at a hospital to close. The stitches were in place for "almost two weeks." Multiple witnesses described watching Medellin wind his arm back, run or hop towards the victim, and release a punch downwards connecting with the victim's mouth. The victim did not have time to react to the punch. The resulting injury impaired the victim's ability to drink and eat.
The doctor who treated the second victim at the hospital also...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Quinonez
...injury definition was theoretical at best. Unfortunately, the prosecutor in the recent case of People v. Medellin (Feb. 20, 2020, F076022) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867, 2020 WL 830758 actually argued, based on the CALCRIM No. 3160 definition of great bodily injury, that minor har......
-
Caldwell v. Frauenheim
...found where the attack is made by use of hands or fists.” People v. McDaniel, 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 748 (2008); see People v. Medellin, 45 Cal.App. 5th 519, 528 (2020) (noting that a solitary punch can constitute force likely to produce great bodily injury). In determining whether a fist wou......
-
People v. Collins
...or objective, and thus did not in any manner correct the prosecutor's misstatement of law. (Accord, People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, 535-536, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 [where "CALCRIM definition did not clarify [a] point" on which the prosecutor made misstatement, error was prejudici......
-
People v. Sandoval
...(CALCRIM Nos. 875, 3160, italics added.) Based on the majority opinion from one panel of this court (People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 (Medellin )), defendant contends the instructions are erroneous because use of the emphasized disjunctive improperly permits......
-
Submission to jury and deliberations
...if trial counsel both intentionally caused the trial court to err and clearly did so for tactical reasons. People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 519, 525, 45 Cal. App. 5th 519. On appeal for a claim of instructional error, the question is whether the jury could have applied the challen......
-
Drunk driving offenses
...“significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” In People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, (Three stitches to jaw of V1 and seven stitches to lip of V2) the prosecutor argued to the jury that GBI only required proof that the i......
-
Table of cases
...181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761, §10:210 Meacham, People v. (1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 142, 199 Cal. Rptr. 586, §1:150 Medellin, People v. (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 519, 45 Cal. App. 5th 519, §22:10 Medina v. Hillshore Partners (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 477, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, §18:20 Medina, People v. (1......
-
Punishment
...for GBI. Is it greater than minor harm or is it greater than moderate harm? This ambiguity was addressed in People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, 531, where the prosecutor argued that harm greater than minor harm alone was sufficient. The Court held that the prosecutor plainly misst......