People v. Griffin CA2/5

California Court of Appeal May 13, 2022 No. B310849Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted criminal threat, finding the instructional error harmless, but vacated the one-year weapons enhancement due to erroneous jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the objective reasonableness element of attempted criminal threat was prejudicial.
Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the sentencing enhancement for use of a deadly or dangerous weapon.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that, to find defendant guilty of attempted criminal threat, it must conclude that the intended threat was sufficient under the circumstances to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear.”

“the imposition of the one-year weapons enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) must be vacated because the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury to conclude that a knife was an inherently dangerous weapon.”

Filed 5/13/22 P. v. Griffin CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B310849

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA476482) v.

PHILLIP DEAN GRIFFIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Bess Stifflelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant Phillip Dean Griffin of attempted criminal threat and found true the allegation that he used a deadly and dangerous weapon. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of his crime and the sentencing enhancement. The Attorney General concedes both errors, but maintains that defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to instruct adequately on attempted criminal threat. We affirm the judgment as modified.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Information

On April 25, 2019, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant by information with assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1);1 and making a criminal threat, in violation of section 422, subdivision (a) (count 2). The District Attorney additionally alleged, among other sentencing enhancements, that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), in connection with count 2.

People v. Griffin CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B310849

PHILLIP DEAN GRIFFIN,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. Jury Instructions and Closing Arguments

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.

AI Brief