Brackins

People v. Brackins

Good Law
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261·37 Cal. App. 5th 56
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 2, 2019H043584California6,632 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mihara, J.

*59 Defendant Lionel Brackins was convicted by jury trial of aggravated assault ( Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4) ), 1 inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)). 2 The court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court prejudicially erred in (1) denying his request to modify CALCRIM No. 2622, the attempted dissuading instruction, to insert language requiring a finding of malice and describing when a presumption that malice was absent would apply, and (2) instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 850 about expert testimony by a prosecution expert on intimate partner violence. We find that the trial court properly denied the request for modifications to CALCRIM No. 2622 because a violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b), unlike a violation of section 136.1, subdivision (a), does not require malice. We also reject defendant's challenge to CALCRIM No. 850. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I. Prosecution's Case At Trial

Janet Amezcua and defendant had been in a relationship for 10 years…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.