People v. McDonald CA1/5

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. McDonald CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A161413 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALVIN BENNETT McDONALD III, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 20CR000524) Defendant and Appellant.

Calvin Bennett McDonald III contends that his conviction for three counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) must be reversed because the trial court erroneously omitted an instruction on an element of the offense and provided an incorrect response to a jury question. Because we conclude his contentions lack merit, we affirm. BACKGROUND McDonald’s conviction stems from the aftermath of an altercation he had with a fellow patient at Napa State Hospital. McDonald punched the other patient in the face, knocking him unconscious. McDonald cooperated with hospital police officers who escorted him to the seclusion room, and he sat down on the bed there when told to do so. An officer closed and locked the door to the room, leaving McDonald alone inside. Several police officers subsequently entered the room after McDonald did not comply with an order to lay down on the bed. 1

McDonald backed into a corner on the farthest wall from the door to the room, and put up his fists (or open hands—the point is disputed). He said he had the right to defend himself. The officers grabbed McDonald by his arms, pushed him down onto the bed, applied pain compliance techniques, and handcuffed him. Once the officers had restrained McDonald, the staff tied him to the bed using five-point restraints and administered medication intended to calm him down. At trial, the prosecution argued that the officers reasonably went into the seclusion room and gained control of McDonald to ensure the staff could safely provide medication or apply five- point restraints. Some officers testified that the staff had told them before they went into the room that McDonald was going to be placed in five-point restraints, and the officers had gone into the room to grab McDonald so that the staff could safely place him in restraints. Officers also testified more generally that they intervened to ensure staff safety. Once the officers went into the room, McDonald adopted a fighting stance, and some of the officers felt they were in imminent danger of being assaulted. After the officers grabbed him, McDonald attempted to pull his arms away and free himself from the officers’ holds. The defense argued that the police officers were acting unlawfully because they unreasonably used force against McDonald, and he was therefore justified in resisting them. The officers were allowed to use force if a patient poses a risk to himself or others; or they could use force to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. The staff were only allowed to apply five point-restraints when a patient is currently displaying violent or aggressive tendencies. When the officers entered the room, McDonald was not threatening to harm himself or anyone else, nor was he trying to escape the room; neither was he being placed under arrest. The officers were shouting conflicting commands at McDonald, and he stood up from the bed to comply with one of those commands. McDonald did not