People v. Modiri
139 P.3d 136, 39 Cal. 4th 481, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 762 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant 'personally inflicts great bodily injury' in a group beating scenario under Penal Code § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8) if they directly apply physical force to the victim that is sufficient to inflict, or contribute substantially to the infliction of, great bodily harm, even if the defendant is not the sole cause of a specific injury and the precise injurious effect is unclear.
Facts:
- On July 22, 2000, 18-year-old Matthew Bour hosted a party at his home while his father was out of town, asking his 19-year-old neighbor, Shea Michael Modiri, to maintain order.
- Between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., Ryan Schon, who had a history of animosity with Bour, arrived at the party, causing concern among partygoers.
- Darren Hitt confronted Schon, and Modiri intervened, speaking in a hostile tone, bumping Schon with his chest, and pushing him while telling him to leave or fight.
- As Schon attempted to leave with his friend Amy Jorgenson, Modiri pursued him, pushing and pulling, then punched Schon with his fist, hitting his face.
- After Modiri's initial punch, he stepped back, and 10 to 15 people swarmed and tackled Schon to his knees, hitting him with bottles, kicks, and blows from all sides, during which Modiri also actively participated.
- Jorgenson intervened, pulling Modiri away from Schon, and felt a bottle in Modiri's hand pressing against her hipbone; Modiri was later seen pursuing Schon and Jorgenson, throwing a bottle that crashed near them.
- Immediately after the attack, Modiri told his friend, Leslie LaBarbera, that he had 'just broke the last [bottles] over the guy’s head.'
- Schon suffered multiple head cuts requiring staples, facial trauma, a broken nose requiring surgery, and a large gash on his wrist; Schon's blood was found on Modiri’s shoes, socks, and pants.
Procedural Posture:
- Shea Michael Modiri (defendant) was charged and convicted by a jury of felony assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) against Ryan Schon.
- The jury also sustained two allegations: that Modiri personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon (a bottle) and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) on Schon during the assault.
- The trial court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 17.20, which included specific theories for determining personal infliction of GBI in a group beating.
- Modiri appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeal, arguing that CALJIC No. 17.20 improperly negated the 'personally inflict' requirement.
- The Court of Appeal agreed with Modiri regarding the instructional error for the GBI finding, invalidating the second group beating theory in CALJIC No. 17.20, and reversed the § 1192.7(c)(8) finding, remanding for a limited retrial on that issue.
- The Court of Appeal declined to disturb the personal-use weapon finding, concluding that the instructional error was harmless for that allegation.
- Modiri sought review from the California Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal's decision regarding the personal-use finding, but did not address the GBI finding he had won on appeal.
- The California Supreme Court granted Modiri's petition for review and, in doing so, asked the parties to address whether the Court of Appeal properly vacated the § 1192.7(c)(8) finding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does CALJIC No. 17.20's group beating theories, which allow a finding of 'personally inflict[ing] great bodily injury' if the defendant applied physical force that by itself could have caused great bodily injury or that contributed to the cumulative effect of force from multiple assailants, satisfy the personal-infliction requirement of Penal Code § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, the group beating theories in CALJIC No. 17.20 satisfy the personal-infliction requirement of Penal Code § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8) because the defendant need not be the sole or definite cause of a specific injury so long as they physically join a group attack and directly apply force to the victim sufficient to inflict, or contribute to the infliction of, great bodily harm. The terms 'personally' and 'inflicts' in the statute do not imply that the defendant must act alone or be the exclusive cause of injuries; 'personally' refers to a direct, in-person act, and 'inflicts' means to lay a blow or cause something damaging. CALJIC No. 17.20 accurately reflects these principles by requiring the defendant to personally apply unlawful physical force that is sufficient to produce great bodily injury, either by itself or in combination with other assailants, and thereby substantially contribute to the victim's injured state, explicitly excluding mere aiding and abetting. Consistent with precedent like People v. Cole, a defendant personally inflicts great bodily harm if there is a direct physical link between their act and the injury. Appellate courts have consistently upheld personal-infliction findings in group attacks for 20 years (e.g., People v. Corona, People v. Dominick) where the defendant personally used force and the precise injurious effect was unclear, thus preventing perpetrators of mob violence from evading enhanced punishment due to the chaos of a group attack. Legislative history supports this interpretation, as the 1986 amendment adding 'personally' to § 1192.7(c)(8) aimed to conform it to § 12022.7, which had already been judicially construed to include group beating principles. The instruction's language, including 'could have caused' and the 'knew or reasonably should have known' requirement, is neither speculative nor does it substitute for personal infliction; rather, it preserves the causal link and arguably imposes an additional evidentiary burden.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the trial court's instruction using CALJIC No. 17.20 was incorrect because neither of its two alternative theories accurately explains the requirement for a finding that a defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in a group beating context. The fundamental requirement is that the defendant's physical participation must be a 'substantial factor' in causing the great bodily injury, meaning it must be more than trivial or insignificant. The instruction's first theory, that the defendant's force 'could have caused' the injury 'by itself,' is flawed because 'could have caused' implies only potential, not actual causation. The defendant's force must have actually contributed to the injury in a non-trivial way. The second theory, based on the defendant's knowledge that the 'cumulative effect' of all force would result in great bodily injury, is also erroneous because it fails to incorporate the 'substantial factor' requirement; a finding of cumulative effect does not preclude the defendant's own blows being only a trivial factor. The majority mistakenly reads into the instruction concepts of 'as a result' or 'significant' contribution that are not explicitly present. The instruction's failure to properly explain the substantial factor causation requirement prejudiced the defendant given the conflicting evidence.
Concurring - Werdegar, J.
Yes, CALJIC No. 17.20 accurately states the law regarding allegations of personal infliction of great bodily injury. The trial court did not err by giving the instruction in this case, where evidence showed the defendant participated in a group attack and personally struck the victim with blows that the jury could find caused injuries, either by themselves or together with co-assailants' blows. This concurrence clarifies that the majority's discussion of People v. Dominick should be understood as endorsing the general principle that direct participants in group attacks are not immune from personal-infliction findings, rather than approving its application to specific factual scenarios like merely restraining a victim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for imposing sentence enhancements for 'personally inflicting great bodily injury' in California, particularly in the complex context of group assaults. It firmly establishes that active participants in mob violence cannot escape enhanced punishment simply because the precise causal link between a specific assailant's blow and a specific injury cannot be definitively established. The ruling reinforces the legislative intent to deter gratuitous violence by ensuring that those who directly and substantially contribute to a victim's serious harm face appropriate accountability. This precedent will guide future prosecutions and jury instructions in similar scenarios, making it more feasible to secure personal infliction findings against individuals involved in collective violence, provided their physical force was a substantial contributor to the overall injury.
