People v. Hicks CA1/5

DISCUSSION

I. Great Bodily Injury

Appellant contends the phrase “great bodily injury” as used in sections 245, subdivision (a)(4) and 12022.7, subdivision (a) is unconstitutionally vague. We decline his invitation to deviate from the prior decisions that have rejected the claim. The decision in People v. Guest (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 809, 811–812 (Guest), reasoned as follows in rejecting the claim as to section 12022.7: “The orthodox test under the United States or California constitutions for unconstitutional vagueness is whether the statute ‘ “either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application . . . .” ’ [Citation.] However, ‘a statute is sufficiently certain if it employs words of long usage or with a common law meaning, “notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates may differ.” ’ [Citation.] As we have stated in People v. Kimbrel (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 869, 876, ‘We are persuaded by the long acceptance of “great bodily injury” as a term commonly

3 understandable to jurors that . . . has not acquired a technical legal…