Opinion
C087219
09-25-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA CHARLES INGRAHAM, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. S17CRF0040)
Defendant Joshua Charles Ingraham initiated an argument with a man smoking outside a transit station in South Lake Tahoe. Another man intervened, and defendant stabbed a third man in the chest who was also present at the scene. Charged with attempted murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense and one assault count; he was found not guilty of the other assault charge, as well as the lesser included offense of simple assault. Enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury and personally using a deadly weapon were also found true. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of five years six months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he did not act in lawful self-defense. He argues the evidence was not sufficient to show his fear of imminent great bodily injury or death was unreasonable, or that his use of self-defense was contrived because he did not initiate a physical attack on any of the participants. Finding no merit to his contentions, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After finishing work on the evening of March 24, 2017, M.G. (Moe) walked to a transit station to wait for a bus. While he waited near the rear of the building, he smoked a cigarette and looked at his phone.
Video surveillance cameras at the transit station showed that defendant and several other persons, including Christopher Maytum, his girlfriend Melanie Blank, and F.H., were also present at the transit station, apparently sheltering near the closed building. Defendant was near the rear of the building, on the opposite side of the wall where Moe stood, while Maytum, Blank, and F.H. were near the building entrance; the latter three appeared to know one another.
Defendant approached Moe and yelled at him to stop smoking. In response, Moe moved a few feet away from the building. Defendant became agitated, repeatedly threatening to hit Moe and challenging him to fight. Defendant got "real close" to Moe, putting his face in Moe's face and goading Moe to hit him. Moe felt intimidated. He told defendant that he did not want to fight, but that if defendant hit him first, he would defend himself. Defendant responded, "If you hit me, you better make it count. Come on. Hit me." At the time, defendant was highly intoxicated. Defendant continued to yell in Moe's direction after Moe walked out of sight of the surveillance camera.
Evidence in the record showed that defendant's blood-alcohol content was over .25 percent when medical personnel treated him after the incident.
During this time, Maytum looked around the corner to see what was happening. F.H. joined Maytum at the corner and they observed the events unfolding between defendant and Moe. F.H. walked away and Maytum then waved him back to the corner. Maytum then stepped out from the corner in defendant's direction. He returned to the corner, said something to F.H., and then walked out from the corner again yelling at defendant to "back off."
Defendant told Maytum to "mind [his] fuckin' business." Defendant then said, "let's go," and started walking towards Maytum. Maytum walked towards defendant. As he walked towards Maytum, defendant lifted his jacket, and pulled out a knife. Maytum continued to advance and defendant stepped back.
After realizing he was holding a knife, Moe yelled at defendant to drop it. Maytum took a fighting stance, and defendant raised the knife and then lowered it. Maytum kicked defendant on the side of his body. Moe testified that he recalled defendant and Maytum kicking and punching each other before defendant pulled the knife, but the video surveillance contradicts this testimony.
The men continued facing one another in a fighting position. At that point, F.H. walked around the corner and around the outside of Maytum; his hands were down. Defendant took a step back and lunged at F.H. with the knife, striking him once in the collarbone area. Moe testified that he originally thought F.H. was trying to break up the fight, but later said he thought he was part of the fight and had "thrown [some] strikes." After viewing the video surveillance, however, he conceded that F.H. never threw any punches before he was stabbed.
After getting stabbed, F.H. fell towards Maytum and then leaned against the wall before walking unsteadily away. He sat down on a nearby bench. Moe called 911.
Meanwhile, defendant tried to grab his backpack and leave the area. Maytum kicked him and defendant pushed Maytum to the ground. Defendant grabbed his bag while Blank tried to block defendant's path and Maytum followed him. Maytum and another man stopped defendant from fleeing by tackling him and repeatedly hitting and kicking him; during the melee Moe was able to grab the knife from defendant, severely cutting his hands in the process.
When officers arrived, Blank was screaming that her friend had been stabbed and needed help. Defendant and Maytum were entangled together on the ground nearby. Defendant was curled up in a protective "turtle" position with Maytum on top of him. An empty black knife sheath protruded from the area of defendant's front pants pocket. F.H. was bleeding and conscious, but not responsive, and Moe's hands were cut and bleeding.
An officer on scene who was familiar with both defendant and Maytum testified that defendant was at least six feet tall and weighed at least 185 pounds, and that Maytum was around six foot five inches tall and weighed about 220 pounds.
Emergency personnel transported F.H., Moe, and defendant to the hospital. F.H. had lost a significant amount of blood and required life-saving surgery. Defendant had suffered several fractured ribs, but his injuries were not life threatening.
Defendant was charged with the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of F.H. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)—count 1), assault with a deadly weapon on F.H. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)—count 2), and assault with a deadly weapon on Moe (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)—count 3). As to each count, it was alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a non-accomplice (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and as to count 1 it was alleged that defendant personally used a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
At trial, the prosecutor argued that defendant was the initial aggressor and that he used more force than reasonably necessary by pulling out the knife as he aggressively approached Maytum after goading him to fight. He also used more force than reasonably necessary on F.H., who simply walked around the corner and never threw any punches at defendant before defendant stabbed him. The prosecutor also argued that defendant started the fight with the intent to pull the knife out, which would likewise negate a valid self-defense claim.
The prosecutor analogized defendant's "step[ping] back" with the knife to a baseball player stepping back to get more force behind a throw. The overhand stabbing motion, the prosecutor argued, showed the stabbing was offensive rather than defensive. And defendant's flight showed his consciousness of guilt.
Defense counsel argued that defendant was threatened and acted in self-defense; Maytum, in his view, started the fight, and F.H. was lying in wait around the corner to join in the fight rather than break it up. Defendant pulled the knife after being threatened and backed up, trying to get Maytum, who was larger than him, to stay away.
The jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter of F.H. and assault with a deadly weapon on F.H. The enhancements attached to both counts were found true. The jury found defendant not guilty of assaulting Moe as alleged in count 3.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years six months in prison, including the low term of one year six months for the attempted voluntary manslaughter offense, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and one year for the use of a deadly weapon enhancement. The court imposed and stayed the sentence on count 2 under section 654. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends insufficient evidence shows he did not act in lawful self-defense. We disagree.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, " 'we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 (Cravens).) " 'The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.)
"We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919 (Medina).) " 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.' " (People v. Kaufman (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 370, 381 (Kaufman).) "The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." ' " (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 508.) The standard of review is the same in cases in which a conviction is based primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 625.)
Self-defense negates culpability for assaultive crimes. (People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 340-341.) It requires an actual and reasonable belief in the need to defend against an imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082.) "Although the belief in the need to defend must be objectively reasonable, a jury must consider what 'would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge . . . .' " (Id. at pp. 1082-1083.) If the defendant uses an unreasonable amount of force under the circumstances, he does not act in lawful self-defense. (People v. Moody (1943) 62 Cal.App.2d 18, 22-23 (Moody).)
Contrary to the applicable standard of review, defendant asks us to reweigh the evidence and draw inferences in favor of him rather than the judgment. (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 919 [appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence].) He specifically argues that the video and testamentary evidence showed that he attempted to back up and retreat while defensively flashing a knife at Maytum, who was much larger than him and approached him in a fighting stance. Under the circumstances, he contends he had an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend himself from imminent great bodily injury or death, and that the evidence was insufficient to show he provoked the attack.
Defendant's contention is unfounded as the jury already considered and rejected this interpretation of and inferences from the evidence, and ample evidence supports the jury's verdicts. The jury could reasonably conclude from the video surveillance evidence and Moe's testimony that defendant tried to provoke a fight with Moe, and later threatened Maytum when he tried to get defendant to "back off." As the prosecutor argued, defendant's statement to Maytum of "let's go" could reasonably be interpreted as provoking a fight with him. While Maytum may have been bigger than defendant, defendant is no small man, and no evidence showed Maytum had any type of weapon. As both men walked towards each other, it was defendant who pulled out the knife. At that point, no kicks or punches had been thrown. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that even if defendant subjectively believed he needed to defend himself, the manner in which he did so was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. (Moody, supra, 62 Cal.App.2d at pp. 22-23 [using unreasonable amount of force negates lawful self-defense claim].)
Likewise, defendant argues that the video shows he used the knife defensively rather than offensively, but the jury could reasonably reject defendant's interpretation and find that he provoked the fight and stabbed someone (F.H.) who had simply walked around the corner and was not involved in the fight. Reversal is not warranted even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a finding contrary to the jury's. (Kaufman, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 380-381.)
Given the posture of this case, we may "resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) Because sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence support the jury's finding that defendant acted in imperfect self-defense, we must reject defendant's sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Butz, J. We concur: /s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Murray, J.