Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Williams CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: D087613

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/26/26 P. v. Williams CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D087613

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FWV23003168)

v.

DANTE LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Steve Malone, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew
Mestman and Jon S. Tangonan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Dante Lee Williams appeals the judgment entered following

a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of assault (Pen. Code,1
§§ 241, subd. (b), 245 subd. (a)(4)) and one count of resisting an officer (§ 69).
Williams claims the trial court erred when it instructed the jury with the
definition of great bodily injury in CALCRIM No. 875. He argues that it is
ambiguous and an incorrect statement of the law. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2023, A.S. was using a leaf blower to clean the parking
lot of a 7-Eleven when Williams approached him from behind, grabbed the
leaf blower, and threw him to the ground. Williams hit A.S., then got on top
of him and continued punching him. A.S. was unable to get up or fight back
because the leaf blower was on his back, so he covered his face as Williams
punched him. Williams’s attack left A.S. with lacerations to his ear, cheek,
lip, face, hands and bloodied clothing and hair. A sheriff’s deputy responded
to the scene and, after a short foot pursuit, arrested Williams. While in
custody, Williams attempted to bite the responding deputy and then kicked
and attempted to bite another deputy.
A.S. was treated by paramedics and declined to be transported to the
hospital because he feared losing his job if he left. His wife cared for his
wounds when he returned home. His physical injuries took between eight to
15 days to heal, and he remains fearful anytime someone walks past him at
work.

1 Unless specified, further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
A jury found Williams guilty of assault of a peace officer in violation of
section 241, subdivision (b); assault with force likely to cause great bodily
injury on A.S. in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(4); and resisting an
officer in violation of section 69. He was sentenced to nine years 10 months
in prison.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
“A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An
appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses
whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a
claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to
misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged
instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the
trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury
applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Mitchell
(2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579.)
The task for the reviewing court is to determine whether the trial court
“fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.” (People v. Quinonez (2020)
46 Cal.App.5th 457, 465 (Quinonez).) In answering this question, the
reviewing court should look to the instructions as a whole and the entire
record of trial, including arguments of counsel. (Ibid.) Where reasonably
possible, the appellate court should interpret the instructions “to support the
judgment rather than defeat it.” (Ibid.; People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306,
326.)

3
II.
Additional Procedural Background
During the jury instruction conference, the court discussed giving
CALCRIM No. 875 in connection with the charge for assault by force likely to
produce great bodily injury on A.S. Defense counsel specifically requested
the instruction include the phrase “more than minor or moderate harm” with
respect to the great bodily injury element. The court ultimately instructed as
follows:
“The defendant is charged in Count 3 with assault with force
likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code
section 245(a)(4) against [A.S.], which is alleged to have occurred
on September 13, 2022.

“To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People
must prove that:

“1(a). The defendant did an act that by its nature would directly
and probably result in the application of force to a person,
and

“1(b). The force was likely to produce great bodily injury;

“2. The defendant did that act willfully;

“3. When the defendant acted, he was aware of facts that
would lead a reasonable person to realize that his act by its
nature would directly and probably result in the
application of force to someone;

“AND

“4. When the defendant acted, he had the present ability to
apply force likely to produce great bodily injury to a person.

“[¶] . . . [¶]

4
“No one needs to actually have been injured by defendant’s act.
But if someone was injured, you may consider that fact, along
with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant
committed an assault, and if so, what kind of assault it was.

“Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical
injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate
harm.”

During closing argument, the prosecutor described great bodily injury
as a “significant or substantial injury . . . it’s an injury that’s greater than,
minor than moderate [h]arm.” He explained:
“And you heard me say this, [Williams is] not charged with causing
great bodily injury. Just with using force likely to cause it. . . . We see
[A.S.] on the left here, covered in his own blood. Blood that resulted
after the defendant threw him on the ground and pommeled his face
until he ran out of breath. From the top right he’s bleeding from his
ear, you see contusions and lacerations on his brow. You see a rather
large laceration on his lip here and he’s bleeding from his face in the
bottom frame.

“[¶] . . . [¶]

“He was helpless on the ground as he turtled up and begged the
defendant to stop. He stopped fighting and he's pinned to the
ground by this blower and the defendant is continuing to punch
him in the head and face while he’s on the ground. And to the
extent his wounds are mitigated it’s for one reason he covered his
face with his hands. That’s why you see his own blood on the back
of his hands because he’s covering his face and being punched in
the head and hands.”

5
Defense counsel argued, “Nothing prevented . . . Williams, based on the
testimony, from causing more substantial bodily injury to [A.S.]. Okay? [A.S.]
was defenseless, arguably, . . . Williams, if he really wanted to inflict great
bodily injury, he could have done so. Okay? But he didn’t.”
III.
Analysis
Williams claims the trial court erred when it instructed the jury with
CALCRIM No. 875. He argues the instruction’s definition of great bodily
injury is ambiguous and an incorrect statement of the law.
“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging a jury
instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has requested the
instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.’ ” ’ ”
(People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138.) The doctrine “'is designed to
prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error
made by the trial court at his [or her] behest.” (People v. Coffman and
Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49.) For the doctrine to apply, it “ ‘must be clear
that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake.’ ”
(Ibid.; People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 28.)
Williams’s claim of error was invited because his defense attorney
specifically requested the definition used by the trial court. He stated, “I also
need to add the ‘more than minor or moderate harm’ to the great bodily
injury [definition].” Williams’s trial counsel thus “made a conscious,
deliberate tactical choice” in requesting the definition. (People v. Cooper
(1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 831.) In cases in which defense counsel took affirmative
actions toward inviting the error, “a clearly implied tactical purpose” is
sufficient to invoke the invited error doctrine. (People v. Coffman and
Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 49.) We accordingly conclude that Williams’s

6
challenge concerning CALCRIM No. 875 is barred. (People v. Harris (2008)
43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293–1294; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514,
530.)
In any event, even if the challenge were not barred, we would conclude
that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury with definition of great
bodily injury in CALCRIM No. 875. Although the majority in People v.
Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519 (Medellin), generally agreed with
Williams’s position, the decision there was based partly on improper
argument. There, the defendant argued, and the People conceded, that the
prosecutor misstated the law regarding the definition of great bodily injury.
(Medellin, at p. 530.) “The cases defining great bodily injury have long
required more than moderate harm but the prosecutor argued more than
minor harm alone was sufficient.” (Id. at p. 533.) Specifically, the prosecutor
there told the jury that “[a]n injury that is greater than minor . . . is all I
need to prove.” (Id. at p. 531.)
Unlike the prosecutor in Medellin, the prosecutor here did not misstate
the law. Instead, he correctly described great bodily injury as a “significant
or substantial injury and it’s an injury that’s greater than, minor than
moderate [h]arm.” While the prosecutor repeated the word “than” instead of
“or,” the entirety of his argument shows he did not misstate the law as the
prosecutor did in Medillin. On this record, it is not reasonably likely that the
jury misapplied the definition of great bodily injury.
Since Medellin, other courts have rejected the argument that the
definition of great bodily harm in the pattern jury instructions is ambiguous
or reasonably likely to result in the jury misapplying the law. (See Quinonez,
supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 466 [holding the pattern jury instructions “were
not ambiguous or erroneous.”]; People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357,

7
361, [holding that there was no reasonable likelihood the jury would “parse
the instructions in such a tortured way as to create the ambiguity” claimed
by the defendant]; People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 902, 904
[holding that the definition for “great bodily harm” in CALCRIM No. 830
(which uses the same definition that CALCRIM No. 875 uses for “great bodily
injury”) “is neither erroneous nor ambiguous.”].) We decline to follow
Medellin for the reasons set forth in these cases and reject Williams’s claim of

instructional error.2
Moreover, even if there was instructional error, it was harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt. (Medellin, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 535.) A.S. was bloodied
from lacerations and abrasions suffered after Williams pinned him to the
ground and beat him. He was treated by paramedics but not transported to
the hospital because he feared he would lose his job. Some of his physical
injuries took more than two weeks to heal and he continues to suffer
emotionally. Williams thus used force that was not just likely to produce, but
did produce, an injury that was greater than minor or moderate harm.

2 CALCRIM 875 has now been revised to specify that great bodily injury
“is an injury that is greater than moderate harm.” (West’s Ann. Cal. Codes,
CALCRIM No. 875, November 2025 Update.)

8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

9