People v. Hayes
142 Cal. App. 4th 175, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7816, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 11150 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser included offense if there is substantial evidence which, if accepted, would absolve the defendant of the greater offense but not the lesser, and a failure to do so is reversible error if it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the instruction been given.
Facts:
- Daniel Anaya, Jim Darryl Hayes's probation officer, arrested Hayes for violating probation and placed him in handcuffs.
- Hayes resisted the arrest, becoming combative and hostile, kicking wildly, and attempting to fight with his hands behind his back.
- Additional probation officers, including Don Phillips, and two deputy sheriffs arrived to assist Anaya during the arrest.
- While Phillips was holding open a door, Hayes intentionally kicked a concrete ashtray, approximately three feet high and weighing about 50 pounds, with great force.
- The ashtray toppled over and struck Phillips in the shin, ripping his pants and causing a four to four and a half inch laceration with a little blood and swelling.
- Phillips's leg was sore for several days, and the injury took approximately one week to heal; he chose not to seek professional medical treatment, believing he could deal with the injury on his own.
Procedural Posture:
- Jim Darryl Hayes was charged in Ventura County Superior Court (trial court) with felony battery with injury on a deputy probation officer in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (c)(1).
- A jury convicted Hayes of the charged offense.
- The trial court sentenced Hayes to two years in prison.
- Hayes appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six.
- The Court of Appeal initially affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion.
- Hayes filed a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal granted Hayes's petition for rehearing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to instruct the jury, without being asked, on the lesser included offense of battery without injury, despite evidence suggesting the victim's injury might not have objectively required professional medical treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Yegan, Acting P. J.
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of battery without injury on a probation officer. A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on an uncharged offense that is lesser than, and included in, a greater charged offense, but only if there is substantial evidence which, if accepted, would absolve the defendant from guilt of the greater offense but not the lesser. Penal Code section 243, subdivision (f)(5), defines "injury" as "any physical injury which requires professional medical treatment," and this is an objective and factual test, not dependent on whether the victim actually sought or desired medical treatment. Here, there was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Deputy Phillips's injury did not objectively require professional medical treatment; his laceration had only "a little blood" and "a little swelling," caused soreness for several days, healed in about a week, and Phillips himself believed he "could deal with it on [his] own." Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of battery without injury, as the evidence could have supported a conviction for the lesser crime while absolving Hayes of the greater. The court initially found this error harmless under the People v. Watson standard (reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome), reasoning that the jury's verdict form stating "Battery with injury" meant the jury necessarily resolved the injury question. However, on rehearing, the court concluded that the language "Battery with injury" in the verdict form was merely a recital of the charged offense and superfluous; it did not mean the jury specifically determined that the injury objectively required professional medical treatment. Because Hayes was presented with an unwarranted "all-or-nothing" choice between conviction of the charged felony offense and complete acquittal, and given the ambiguous nature of Phillips's injury under the statutory definition, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense had it been given that option. Consequently, the judgment is reversed. The prosecution is given the option of retrying the greater offense or accepting a reduction to the lesser included misdemeanor offense.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the trial court's sua sponte duty to instruct juries on all lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence. It clarifies that such an instructional omission is not harmless when it deprives the jury of a factually supported alternative to an 'all-or-nothing' choice, even if the verdict form recites the elements of the greater offense. The ruling emphasizes the objective nature of the 'injury' standard in battery cases, preventing convictions for aggravated battery when the physical harm, while present, does not objectively meet the threshold of requiring professional medical treatment. This ensures fairness to defendants by allowing juries to consider all legally and factually appropriate verdicts.
