legal elements violation in California

2022Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) ‘“The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.”’” (In re R.M. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 582, 588 , quoting In re Amanda A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 537, 546 .) “‘The offense is a general intent crime, proscribing only the particular act (r

2022Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) ‘“The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.”’” (In re R.M. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 582, 588 , quoting In re Amanda A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 537, 546 .) “‘The offense is a general intent crime, proscribing only the particular act (r

2021(People v. Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 432 .) “Willfully” is defined in the Penal Code, and its definition does not encompass a requirement of actual knowledge.

2013No decision has interpreted the statute to apply only to physical acts, and the statutory language does not suggest such a limitation.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 431 .) Christopher concluded that because the defendant tried “to mislead the police by falsely identifying himself . . . he thereby willfully obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of, or attempt to discharge, his duties within the meaning of section 148(a)(1).” (People v. Christopher, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 432 .) This view of section 148 as a non-violent crime was recently noted by

2015(In re Gregory S. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 764, 778 ; People v. Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981 , 985–987.) At no time has Victor argued that he was unaware of Mason’s wish to detain him and, as discussed ante, that attempted detention was supported by reasonable suspicion.

2014(People v. Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981, 987 .) There is no doubt that the officers were engaged in the performance of their duties when they knocked on defendant’s door and attempted to gain entry to search for Christian.

2013The California Supreme Court acknowledged the cases on which respondent relied,7 and observed that “‘[t]he law 6 “[T]he accusatory pleading test only applies in determining whether a defendant received notice of the charges against him in order to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense. [Citations.]” (People v. Bailey, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 751 .) When, “‘“[c]oncerns about notice are irrelevant,”’ . . . the legal elements test, rather than the accusatory pleading test, is used to determine whether an offense is necessarily included within another. [Citation.]” (Ibid

2013Scroggins opposes this request, arguing we may not reduce the conviction because the jury's verdict does not necessarily encompass the requisite intent for attempt. " '[U]nder Penal Code sections 1181, subdivision 6, and 1260, an appellate court that finds that insufficient evidence supports the conviction for a greater offense may, in lieu of granting a new trial, modify the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.' " (People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748 .) In this context, we determine whether a lesser offense is included in a greater offense by a

2007We nonetheless had no occasion in Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 , to consider defendant's argument that even under the legal elements test, Apprendi supra, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th 535 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 , 100 P.3d 870 , together require conduct enhancements to be treated the same as legal elements for the purpose of defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2007We nonetheless had no occasion in Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 , to consider defendant's argument that even under the legal elements test, Apprendi supra, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th 535 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 , 100 P.3d 870 , together require conduct enhancements to be treated the same as legal elements for the purpose of defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2007(See People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351 , 228 Cal.Rptr. 509 , 721 P.2d 595 (Pearson ).) The holding in Sloan is consistent with this court's recent decision in People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal. Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 (Reed) , which held that the legal elements test, rather than the accusatory pleading test, should be used in determining whether conviction of a charged offense is barred under the rule.

2007(See People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351 , 228 Cal.Rptr. 509 , 721 P.2d 595 (Pearson ).) The holding in Sloan is consistent with this court's recent decision in People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal. Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 (Reed) , which held that the legal elements test, rather than the accusatory pleading test, should be used in determining whether conviction of a charged offense is barred under the rule.

2007We nonetheless had no occasion in Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 , to consider defendant's argument that even under the legal elements test, Apprendi supra, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th 535 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 , 100 P.3d 870 , together require conduct enhancements to be treated the same as legal elements for the purpose of defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2007We nonetheless had no occasion in Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1224 , 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 , to consider defendant's argument that even under the legal elements test, Apprendi supra, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th 535 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 , 100 P.3d 870 , together require conduct enhancements to be treated the same as legal elements for the purpose of defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2022“A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” ’ the jury's verdict. [Citation.]” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 .) “The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the [lawful] performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in t

2022“A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” ’ the jury's verdict. [Citation.]” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 .) “The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the [lawful] performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in t

2022Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) ‘“The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.”’” (In re R.M. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 582, 588 , quoting In re Amanda A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 537, 546 .) “‘The offense is a general intent crime, proscribing only the particular act (r

2020(See People v. Hairston (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 231, 238 .) Section 148, subdivision (a)(1) states: “Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and

2016(People v. Edwards, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1099 .) Substantial Evidence - Obstructing or Resisting a Peace Officer (Count 3) Huggins contends “the evidence was insufficient to show that [he] willfully resisted a peace officer.” We disagree. “ ‘The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the pe

2016(Cf. In re Andre P. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1164, 1175 .) For example, physical resistance, hiding, or running away from a police officer have been found to violate section 148.

2015(In re Gregory S. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 764, 778 ; People v. Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981 , 985–987.) At no time has Victor argued that he was unaware of Mason’s wish to detain him and, as discussed ante, that attempted detention was supported by reasonable suspicion.

2015Code, § 148, subd. (a)).5 “ ‘The legal elements of a violation of [Penal Code] section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the [lawful] performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.’ ” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 759 , italics added & brackets in original; In re Muhammed C. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1329 [“physical resi

2014(People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 ; accord, People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1237 .)” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053 .) “The legal elements of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a) are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.” (People v. Simons (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1100 , 1108- 1109.) “

2014(In re Joseph F. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 975, 982 ; People v. Simons, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109 .) An officer using excessive force cannot be acting in lawful performance of his duties and a defendant cannot be found guilty of resisting arrest.

2013Since enhancements are not legal elements of the offenses to which they attach, they are not considered in defining necessarily included offenses. . ." (Izaguirre, supra, 42 Cal. 4th. at p. 128.) The distinction between "offenses" and "enhancements" is based on People v. Walcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92 , which holds that for purposes of determining whether an offense is included in a charged offense, an enhancement allegation is not to be 4 considered.

2013The trial court need not have instructed the jury that . . . [the claimed lesser included offense] was an offense included in [the charged offense]." (People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508 , 1532–1533 (Lopez); also, People v. Moussabeck (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 975, 981 .) As in Lopez, an information charging robbery by means of force and fear is treated as if it were in the statutory disjunctive of force or fear, and the legal elements test is applied to determine if there are lesser included offenses.

2013We conclude, however, that the exception did not apply in this case. “ [W]hether a crime constitutes an act of violence that qualifies for the multiple- victim exception to section 654 depends upon whether the crime . . . is defined to proscribe an act of violence against the person.” (People v. Hall (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1092 , italics added, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 343-344 .) But section 148 is not defined as a crime of violence. 4 “ ‘ “The legal elements of a violation of section [148(a)(1)] are as follows: (1) the defendant willfully re

2013No decision has interpreted the statute to apply only to physical acts, and the statutory language does not suggest such a limitation.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 431 .) Christopher concluded that because the defendant tried “to mislead the police by falsely identifying himself . . . he thereby willfully obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of, or attempt to discharge, his duties within the meaning of section 148(a)(1).” (People v. Christopher, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 432 .) This view of section 148 as a non-violent crime was recently noted by

2013No decision has interpreted the statute to apply only to physical acts, and the statutory language does not suggest such a limitation.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 431 .) Christopher concluded that because the defendant tried “to mislead the police by falsely identifying himself . . . he thereby willfully obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of, or attempt to discharge, his duties within the meaning of section 148(a)(1).” (People v. Christopher, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 432 .) This view of section 148 as a non-violent crime was recently noted by

2013No decision has interpreted the statute to apply only to physical acts, and the statutory language does not suggest such a limitation.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 431 .) Christopher concluded that because the defendant tried “to mislead the police by falsely identifying himself . . . he thereby willfully obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of, or attempt to discharge, his duties within the meaning of section 148(a)(1).” (People v. Christopher, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 432 .) This view of section 148 as a non-violent crime was recently noted by