People v. Flowers

California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 1974 No. Crim. No. 23993Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that assault with a deadly weapon is not a lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit murder, that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the defense of unconsciousness, and that the defendant's challenge to the jury panel was untimely.

Issues

Whether assault with a deadly weapon is a necessarily included offense of assault with intent to commit murder.
Whether the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the defense of unconsciousness.
Whether the defendant's challenge to the jury selection method was procedurally valid.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[A]ssault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)), is not included in assault with intent to commit murder (Pen. Code, § 217) . . . since the latter crime does not contain as an element the use of a deadly weapon.”

“If the state of unconsciousness is caused by voluntary intoxication, however, it is not a complete defense.”

“A challenge to the panel must be taken before a juror is sworn, and must be in writing or be noted by the Phonographic Reporter, and must plainly and distinctly state the facts constituting the ground of challenge.”

[815]Opinion

JEFFERSON, Acting P. J. In a six-count information, defendant was charged as follows: count I, assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of Penal Code section 217; count II, assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a); count III, assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of Penal Code section 217; count IV, assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a); count V, assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of Penal Code section 217; count VI, assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a).

It was alleged in counts I, III and V that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the offenses and it was also alleged in counts II, IV and VI that defendant used a firearm during the commission of the offenses.

Defendant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found defendant guilty as charged, found true the “armed” and “use” allegations and further found defendant sane at the time he committed the offenses charged.

Prior to testimony being received, defendant challenged the jury panel on the grounds that the method of jury selection in the central district denied him due process and equal protection. The challenge was denied.

Defendant’s motion for new trial and request for probation were denied, as was his motion to strike the “use” charges. He was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. The sentences as to counts I, III and V were ordered to run concurrently and the sentences on counts II, IV and VI were ordered stayed pending appeal, the stay to become permanent upon the completion of the sentences on counts I, III and V.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.

For several years prior to 1972 Luci Wortman had lived with defendant “off and on without the benefit of clergy.” They separated and quarreled many times but continued their illicit relationship until June 1972. In August 1972 she met a Samuel Matlock and moved him into her apartment which she had formerly occupied with defendant and her son, Theodore.

On August 12th Mrs. Wortman, her son Theodore, and Matlock were in the apartment together, when defendant “burst in” the apartment and started a scuffle with Matlock. Defendant w$nt into the kitchen, came back into the living room with a butcher knifé and started towards Mat-

People v. Flowers

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief