P. v. Wyatt 12/9/10 CA1/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2011 » P. v. Wyatt 12/9/10 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A114612A

Case Date: 03/24/2011

Preview:Filed 12/9/10 P. v. Wyatt CA1/2 Following remand from the Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD WYATT, Defendant and Appellant. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C147107) A114612

I. INTRODUCTION After a jury trial, Reginald Wyatt (appellant) was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and assault on a child causing death. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of a police officer during a hearing on the voluntariness of appellants statements to officers; (2) the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte on the requirement of jury unanimity as to both counts; (3) the trial court omitted an essential element of the offense in its instruction on assault on a child causing death; (4) the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte on assault as a necessarily included offense of assault on a child causing death; (5) the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte on involuntary manslaughter as a necessarily included offense of assault on a child causing death; (6) the trial court failed to instruct the jury that criminal negligence could never support an assault conviction and that injury alone is not sufficient to establish an assault; (7) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for assault on a child causing death; (8) the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti for either offense;

1

(9) Californias corpus delicti rule violates due process; (10) the jury instructions directed guilty verdicts; (11) appellant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel; and (12) the sentence of 25 years to life constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment. We earlier found that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for assault on a child causing death, and reversed that conviction. We also rejected defendants contentions that the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of police officers during a Miranda1 hearing, that the court failed to, sua sponte, instruct the jury on the need for unanimity with regard to the both the charged offenses, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti for either offense, that Californias corpus delicti rule violates due process, and that the jury instructions in this case directed guilty verdicts. In People v. Wyatt (2010) 48 Cal.4th 776, 780, 786 (Wyatt), the California Supreme Court reversed our judgment to the extent that we found insufficient evidence to support defendants conviction for assault on a child causing death and remanded the matter to us. We now address the remaining issues on appeal. Because we conclude that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct, sua sponte, on assault as a necessarily included offense of assault on a child causing death, we address only those issues germane to a possible retrial, namely, that the trial court omitted an essential element of the offense in its instruction on assault on a child causing death; that the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte on involuntary manslaughter as a necessarily included offense of assault on a child causing death; and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that criminal negligence could never support an assault conviction and that injury alone is not sufficient to establish an assault. We also consider and reject defendants contention that the sentence of 25 years to life constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment.

1

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S.. 436 (Miranda). 2

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information with murder (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Wyatt 12/9/10 CA1/2.pdf