simple assault instruction in California

2021Finally, even if the court erred by failing to offer the simple assault instruction sua sponte, the failure to do so would constitute harmless error. “ ‘ “[T]he failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone, and is thus subject only to state standards of reversibility.” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 .) We reverse a judgment based on failure to provide an instruction on a lesser included offense “only if, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence’ [citation], it app

2021Finally, even if the court erred by failing to offer the simple assault instruction sua sponte, the failure to do so would constitute harmless error. “ ‘ “[T]he failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone, and is thus subject only to state standards of reversibility.” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 .) We reverse a judgment based on failure to provide an instruction on a lesser included offense “only if, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence’ [citation], it app

2025(See People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209 [“The sealed transcript that is before us, in which the court ‘state[d] for the record what documents it examined,’ is adequate for purposes of conducting a meaningful appellate review”].) 48 substantial evidence that the amount of force used in the assault was not likely to cause great bodily injury such that a simple assault instruction was required. “[A] trial court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense, whether or not the defendant so requests, whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty of only the lesser offense is substa

2013(People v. Griggs (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 734, 739-740 .) Simple assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with the present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. (§ 240.) Simple assault is a lesser included offense of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, former subd. (a)(1); People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 747 .) Defendant argues that a simple assault instruction was required because the victim’s injuries were minimal, focusing on the fact that defendant’s “kick was not done with sufficient force to make the infliction of great bo

2025People v. Roth (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 522 (Roth) is similarly instructive as it involved a manual assault yielding no serious injuries.

2025(In re B.M., supra, at pp. 535-536 .) 11 Analysis Carolus first argues that because Thomas’s hand injuries were minor, the jury could have found that he committed simple assault but not assault with a deadly weapon, thus necessitating a simple assault instruction.

2025Thomas’s lack of serious injury does not constitute substantial evidence that Carolus committed simple assault but not aggravated assault. “ ‘[A] conviction for assault with a deadly weapon does not require proof of an injury or even physical contact’ [citation].” (In re B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 535 .) Rather, the proper inquiry is what harm could have resulted from the manner in which the defendant used the object.

2024Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386 (Graham), upon which appellant relies, does not alter this conclusion.

2024(Gonzalez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 200 , citing People v. Eid (2014) 59 Cal.4th 650, 657 .) Here, however, the defendants’ juries were not given an all-or-nothing choice with respect to count 3, despite the lack of a simple assault instruction.

2024(Gonzalez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 200 , citing People v. Eid (2014) 59 Cal.4th 650, 657 .) Here, however, the defendants’ juries were not given an all-or-nothing choice with respect to count 3, despite the lack of a simple assault instruction.

2021(See Brown, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 147 .) These critical factual differences indicate there was little evidence to support the giving of a simple assault instruction.

2021Finally, even if the court erred by failing to offer the simple assault instruction sua sponte, the failure to do so would constitute harmless error. “ ‘ “[T]he failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone, and is thus subject only to state standards of reversibility.” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 .) We reverse a judgment based on failure to provide an instruction on a lesser included offense “only if, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence’ [citation], it app

2021(People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1218-1219 .) In any event, the claim lacks merit.

2020(People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 165 .) Alia asserts his trial attorney erred in not requesting the simple assault instruction, and the trial court erred in failing to give it.

2020(Shockley, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 406 .) Alia argues his trial attorney erred in not requesting a simple assault instruction, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in failing to do so, and that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to give the instruction.

2017(People v. Sinclair, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1020; see also People v. Leach (1985) 41 Cal.3d 92, 106 [defendant who denied taking part in a robbery was not entitled to lesser included grand theft instruction]; People v. Trimble (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260 [defendant who denied committing vehicular burglary was not entitled to lesser included auto tampering instruction]; People v. Medina, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1005-1006 [defendant who relied on alibi defense to murder was not entitled to diminished capacity instructions]; People v. Salas (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 600, 607-608 [d

2017(People v. Sinclair, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1020; see also People v. Leach (1985) 41 Cal.3d 92, 106 [defendant who denied taking part in a robbery was not entitled to lesser included grand theft instruction]; People v. Trimble (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260 [defendant who denied committing vehicular burglary was not entitled to lesser included auto tampering instruction]; People v. Medina, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1005-1006 [defendant who relied on alibi defense to murder was not entitled to diminished capacity instructions]; People v. Salas (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 600, 607-608 [d

2013With regard to the other victims, to the extent defendant’s argument encompasses these counts, we find that given the absence of substantial evidence that either Barbara or Shannon consented to these assaults or that defendant’s conduct was not sexual, the trial court was not required to instruct sua sponte on assault as a lesser included count of any of the charges. 12 lesser included offense. [Citations.] In addition, a lesser included instruction need not be given when there is no evidence that the offense is less than that charged.” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 174 .) With reg

2013(People v. Griggs (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 734, 739-740 .) Simple assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with the present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. (§ 240.) Simple assault is a lesser included offense of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, former subd. (a)(1); People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 747 .) Defendant argues that a simple assault instruction was required because the victim’s injuries were minimal, focusing on the fact that defendant’s “kick was not done with sufficient force to make the infliction of great bo

2013(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 886 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) A trial court’s failure to instruct on all lesser included offenses that are supported by the evidence “is not subject to reversal unless an examination of the entire record establishes a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome. [Citations.]” (People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 165 .) We have reviewed the record and cannot conclude that any error affected the outcome.