California Court of Appeal Oct 2, 2015 No. E061512Unpublished
Filed 10/2/15 P. v. Elias CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061512
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1205570)
REUBEN ELIAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Affirmed.
Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton and James H.
Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Reuben Elias appeals from his conviction of felony making criminal
Under that standard, we reverse only if it is reasonably probable the jury would have
returned a different verdict in the absence of the error. (Watson, at pp. 836-837.)
“[E]vidence sufficient to warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense does not
necessarily amount to evidence sufficient to create a reasonable probability of a different
outcome had the instruction been given.” (People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113,
1161, abrogated on another point by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3.)
In that case, the court stated that even when there was “‘some evidence’” to the contrary,
6
“the far more plausible inference” supported the jury’s verdict, and the trial court’s
failure to instruct on a lesser included offense was harmless. (Ibid.) Thus, even if we
assume error, we nonetheless conclude the error was harmless.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
KING J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats because the evidence of the victim's sustained fear was substantial and not merely fleeting or transitory.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude the evidence that her fear was transitory or fleeting was insubstantial. The trial court was not required to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats.”
“even if we assume error, we nonetheless conclude the error was harmless.”