People v. White
2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 950, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323, 241 Cal. App. 4th 881 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury under California law does not require the defendant to have a specific intent to injure or a subjective awareness that a battery would result, but rather that a reasonable person, viewing the facts known to the defendant, would realize the willful act would directly, naturally, and probably result in a battery.
Facts:
- On December 3, 2013, Hillary Travon White, an inmate at a CYA facility, engaged in a fist fight with another inmate.
- Correctional Counselor Elmore pepper-sprayed White after he refused to stop fighting.
- White became angry, called Elmore a 'bitch,' and was subsequently permitted to use a shower.
- The shower had a window facing the control desk, located six feet away, where Elmore and Parole Agent Zavala were seated; the window was a multi-paned partition of wire-reinforced glass, with some panes missing.
- White broke off the metal showerhead and threw it in the direction of the window, causing a loud thud, shattering a pane, and spraying glass particles onto Elmore and the desk, with a sliver of glass hitting Elmore's eye.
- White then moved to within one or two feet of the window, picked up the showerhead, and threw it again.
- The second throw caused another loud bang, showered Zavala with glass particles, cut her lip, and allowed the showerhead to penetrate the window and land near the desk.
Procedural Posture:
- Hillary Travon White was charged with two counts of assault on a peace officer with force likely to produce great bodily harm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)).
- A jury in Ventura County Superior Court (trial court/court of first instance) convicted White of both counts.
- White was sentenced to prison for five years four months.
- White, as the defendant and appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, contending there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize a battery would probably and directly result from his conduct.
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 assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code section 245(c) require a defendant to be subjectively aware that their willful act would probably and directly result in injury, or is an objective 'reasonable person' standard sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Yegan, J.
No, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury does not require a defendant to be subjectively aware that their willful act would probably and directly result in injury; an objective 'reasonable person' standard is sufficient. The court affirmed the conviction, applying the two-part test for assault from People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779. This test requires (1) a willful act which by its nature would probably and directly result in injury to another, and (2) awareness of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would directly, naturally, and probably result from the defendant's conduct. The court emphasized that specific intent to injure victims or a subjective certainty that an application of physical force will result is not required for assault under Penal Code § 245, subdivision (c). The focus is on the force used and its likelihood to produce great bodily injury, making the actual injury suffered immaterial (People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336). The fact that the window was wire-reinforced glass or had missing panes, or that the defendant claimed a 'poor aim,' does not negate the assault. The court analogized White's actions to shooting a firearm at a victim protected by bulletproof glass, which is still considered an assault (People v. Valdez (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 103). The jury could reasonably infer from White's actions—twice throwing a metal showerhead with great force at officers six feet away, breaking glass, and causing injury—that a reasonable person would know his act would probably result in a battery.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the objective standard for the mental state required in California assault cases, particularly for Penal Code § 245(c). It clarifies that a defendant's subjective belief about the safety of their actions or the protective capabilities of barriers does not negate assault if a reasonable person, aware of the same facts, would foresee a battery. The ruling ensures that individuals cannot escape liability for inherently dangerous acts by claiming ignorance or misjudgment of the risks involved. This decision is crucial for maintaining accountability for objectively dangerous conduct, especially within custodial settings, and strengthens the legal framework for protecting peace officers.
