People v. Wyatt

• Decision Date: 12 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. S189786.,S189786.
• Citation: 55 Cal.4th 694,287 P.3d 78,148 Cal.Rptr.3d 508
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Reginald WYATT, Defendant and Appellant.

55 Cal.4th 694

287 P.3d 78

148 Cal.Rptr.3d 508

2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,203

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Reginald WYATT, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S189786.

Supreme Court of California

Nov. 5, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 2012.

See 5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial, § 708 et seq.

Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Laurence K. Sullivan, Violet M. Lee and Alisha M. Carlile, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAXTER, J.

While in defendant's care, defendant's young son died of shock and hemorrhage due to blunt force trauma. A jury convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter (Pen.Code,¹ § 192, subd. (b)) and assault on a child causing death (§ 273ab). As relevant here, the Court of Appeal reversed the section 273ab conviction upon finding the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on simple assault as a lesser included offense. We conclude there was no error. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand with directions to reinstate the conviction.

Factual and Procedural Background

In May 2003, defendant Reginald Wyatt was living with Tiffany Blake and their infant daughter, Valerie. Defendant also had a 14–month–old son, Reginald Wyatt, Jr. (Reginald), from a previous relationship. On the morning of May 18, 2003, Reginald stopped breathing while in defendant's care. He was rushed to the hospital, but could not be revived. Although the treating doctor saw no signs of significant injury on the body, the autopsy disclosed that Reginald died of shock and hemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the chest and abdomen.

An information was filed charging defendant with one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and one count of assault on a child causing death (§ 273ab). ²

As explained in detail, post, the evidence at trial included medical evidence concerning Reginald's injuries, defendant's tape-recorded statements and trial testimony, and testimony from Tiffany Blake and Reginald's mother. After the defense rested, the court granted a judgment of acquittal as to the murder count. (§ 1118.1.) The jury convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (b)) and child assault homicide (§ 273ab).

In 2008, the Court of Appeal reversed the section 273ab conviction. Because the evidence did not show that defendant had “ ‘ actual knowledge’ he was ‘wrestling far too hard with his young son,’ ” the court deemed the evidence insufficient to prove the requisite mens rea for the crime. ( Wyatt I, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 779, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.) On review of the matter, we explained that under People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 114, 29 P.3d 197( Williams ), “a defendant may commit an assault without realizing he is harming the victim, but the prosecution must prove the defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would directly, naturally, and probably result from the defendant's conduct.” ( Wyatt I, at p. 779, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.) Applying the Williams standard, we found substantial evidence establishing “that defendant knew he was striking his young son with his fist, forearm, knee, and elbow, and that he used an amount of force a reasonable person would realize was likely to result in great bodily injury.” ( Ibid.) Accordingly, we reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeal again reversed the section 273ab conviction, this time concluding the trial court should have instructed the jury, sua sponte, on simple assault as a lesser included offense.

We granted the People's petition for review.

Discussion

The Court of Appeal relied on People v. Basuta (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 370, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 285 for the proposition that simple assault (§ 240) is a lesser included offense of child assault homicide (§ 273ab). The People do not contest this holding, so we proceed to the inquiry at hand. Given the evidence at trial, did the trial court prejudicially err in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on simple assault?

The legal principles governing our analysis are settled. “In criminal cases, even absent a request, a trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues the evidence raises. [Citation.] ‘ “That obligation has been held to include giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present [citation], but not when there is no evidence that the offense was less than that charged. [Citations.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘[T]he existence of “ any evidence, no matter how weak” will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is “substantial enough to merit consideration” by the jury. [Citations.]’ ” ( People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 623, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 87, 229 P.3d 12; see People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 813, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 269 P.3d 1109;People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593, 131 P.3d 995.) In this regard, the testimony of a single witness, including that of a defendant, may suffice to require lesser included offense instructions. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) Courts must assess sufficiency of the evidence without evaluating the credibility of witnesses, for that is a task reserved for the jury. ( People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) The failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case does not require reversal “unless an examination of the entire record establishes a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome.” ( Breverman, at p. 165, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094; see Thomas, at p. 814, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 269 P.3d 1109.)

We begin with a summary of the prosecution's evidence.³ At the time of the crimes, Reginald was 14 months old, stood 31 inches tall, and weighed 26 pounds. ( Wyatt I, supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 782, 783, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.) After the autopsy, defendant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 and gave the following statements to investigators in a tape-recorded interview. On the morning of May 18, 2003, defendant got up and started wrestling and playing with Reginald, who was staying with him and his girlfriend Tiffany Blake for the weekend. Defendant picked Reginald up and threw him on the bed, and “chopped” his back with both hands. He held Reginald up and pressed the boy's stomach to his head, and then turned and flipped Reginald a distance of about four feet onto the bed. ( Wyatt I, at p. 782, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.)

Defendant said that at one point, he accidentally fell on top of Reginald while performing a move he called “comin' off the top rope.” Defendant explained that Reginald rolled unexpectedly just as defendant was about to jump on the bed. When defendant landed, his hip came down on Reginald, along with most or all of defendant's body weight of 170 pounds. Reginald grunted as if the wind had been knocked out of him, but he did not cry and continued to smile and seemed fine. Blake later told defendant he was playing too rough with Reginald and could hurt him, so defendant stopped. ( Wyatt I, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 782, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.)

After Blake left for work, defendant resumed wrestling with Reginald for another 20 or 30 minutes. During this period, defendant might have hit his son harder because Blake was not there to interfere. Defendant “body slammed” Reginald about four times, and used his fists to hit Reginald in the chest about 10 or 11 times. He did an “atomic elbow” to Reginald's head, hit him in the upper chest with his forearm about three times, and then hit him on the back. In addition, defendant held Reginald up by his neck, squeezed him between his legs, and twice did a “knee drop,” in which he hit Reginald in the back with his knee. He also did “pretend” head butts and boxed with Reginald, and repeatedly did a “suplex,” which involved grabbing Reginald and flipping him over defendant's body onto the bed. Defendant said he wanted his son to be more “active” and was trying to “toughen him up” because a kid cannot be “soft” to grow up in Oakland. ( Wyatt I, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 783, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.)

During a second tape-recorded interview that same evening, the investigators asked defendant what he was feeling when wrestling with Reginald. Defendant said he was not feeling like himself or thinking about being rough, then clarified he was “stuck” on play-fighting with his son: “Like I just had a one-track mind. I was just stuck on toughening him up, playin' with Reggie, beatin' up Reggie ... that's all that was stuck on there.” He further stated, “[M]y mind musta went blank, though, for me to really ... hit him hard enough ... to hurt him, and I not notice it. I wasn't payin' attention, and I wasn't thinkin'.” In defendant's words, “I was hittin' him pretty hard” and “I wasn't doin' nothin' to not hit him no harder.” As for why he did not heed Blake's warning about hurting Reginald, defendant admitted he was “[h]ard-headed” and “[s]tubborn” and “[d]idn't want a woman to be tellin' me how to raise my son.” Although he had play-wrestled with Reginald before, this was the first time he “lost control.” ( Wyatt I, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 783, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 229 P.3d 156.)

Prosecution witness Dr. David Levin testified his...