Elements of Crimes

Name: People v. Atencio
Case #: C102744
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/30/2026

Moving the robbery victim from her backyard to her house was insufficient asportation to support a conviction of kidnapping for robbery (PC 209(b)(1)). Where the backyard was surrounded by trees and no evidence showed it was within earshot of neighbors, the movement did not increase the risk of harm beyond that incidental to the robbery. The opinion also rejected defendant’s claim that the robbery count should be reversed because he abandoned the stolen goods prior to reaching a place of temporary safety, but reversed the grand theft of a firearm conviction because it was a lesser included offense of robbery.

The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Veliz
Case #: B344807
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 08/18/2026

Force and fear is not an element of attempted robbery because the attempt may be complete before the defendant reaches the stage of using force or fear. The Court further holds that although attempted theft is a lesser included offense of attempted robbery, the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on attempted theft because substantial evidence did not support the instruction.

The full opinion is on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Newt
Case #: A169899
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/30/2026

Merely "possessing" a high-capacity magazine (PC 32310(c)) is insufficient evidence to prove "receiving" a high-capacity magazine (PC 32310(a)). The plain language and legislative history suggest that the Legislature intended the offense of “possessing” a high-capacity magazine to have a distinct meaning from and be less egregious than “receiving” a high-capacity magazine. To convict defendant of receiving a high-capacity magazine under subdivision (a), there must be some evidence, beyond mere possession, as to the provenance of the high-capacity magazine.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chang
Case #: F088521
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/25/2026

A wholly delusional threat caused by the mere presence of a peace officer is insufficient to justify an imperfect self-defense instruction. Imperfect self-defense, which results in a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, occurs when one acts without malice because they are operating under an unreasonable mistake of fact. Imperfect self defense is not applicable when the threat is entirely delusional, with no objective correlate that could plausibly translate into a genuine need for self-defense.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Morgan
Case #: S286493
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 02/26/2026

Assault (PC 240) is not a lesser included offense of resisting an officer by force or violence (PC 69). Violating PC 69 does not require the “present ability” to cause injury, which is a required element of PC 240.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Demacedo
Case #: A170580
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/12/2025

DUI causing injury (VC 23153) is not a lesser included offense of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (PC 191.5), when the offenses involve different victims. Related to one drunk driving accident, Demacedo was convicted of three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (PC 191.5(a)) corresponding to each of three decedents, as well as felony violations of VC 23153(a) and (b) for DUI causing injury to a fourth surviving victim. Because the counts arose from injuries to different victims, the court rejected defendant’s contention that the DUI causing injury counts must be dismissed as lesser included offenses.

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mirabal
Case #: H050860
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/28/2025

Battery (PC § 242) is a lesser included offense of the crime of rape of an intoxicated person (PC § 261(a)(3)), and the trial court erred in not so instructing the jury. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser included offense of battery, as there was substantial evidence to support that defendant did not and reasonably should not have known that Doe was incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.

[Editor’s Note: There is a current split as to whether battery is an LIO…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Feise
Case #: C101541
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/22/2025

The five-year great bodily injury enhancement (PC 12022.7(b)) is appropriate where severe damage to the victim's leg eventually led to its amputation. The five-year enhancement requires "paralysis of a permanent nature . . . . .” which is defined as “a major or complete loss of motor function resulting from injury to the nervous system or to a muscular mechanism.” (§ 12022.7(b).) Contrary to defendant’s argument, there is no legal requirement that a victim “suffer paralysis from a neurological injury” for purposes of this enhancement.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ferrigno
Case #: JAD25-05
Court: CA Superior Court
District Superior Court
Opinion Date: 08/26/2025

The trial court properly dismissed a criminal complaint charging a violation of Fish and Game Code section 2002. Section 2002 criminalizes possession of fish taken in violation of the Fish and Game Code or an associated regulation. A trial court has the authority under PC 1385 to dismiss a charge based on the insufficiency of the evidence or inapplicability of a statute, and statutory analysis leads to the conclusion that the regulation at issue (title 14, section 150.16(a)) does not apply to protected fish inadvertently caught during commercial squid fishing.

The full opinion is…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ball
Case #: G064274
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/09/2025
Subsequent History: Review granted 12/10/25 (S292969)

The crime of brandishing a firearm at a vehicle occupant (PC 417.3) does not require proof the victim subjectively experienced fear. The prohibition on exhibiting a firearm in a manner causing “a reasonable person apprehension or fear of bodily harm” sets forth an objective standard only.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G064274.PDF

The crime of brandishing a firearm at a vehicle occupant (PC 417.3) does not require proof the victim subjectively experienced fear. The prohibition on exhibiting a firearm in a manner causing “a reasonable person apprehension or fear of bodily harm” sets forth an objective standard only.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G064274.PDF

View Full Summary