What is the test for reducing the definition of "great bodily harm" to "moderate injury"?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cheam, B251610 (Cal. App. 2014):
Nevertheless, we address appellant's claim on the merits to forestall appellant's claim of ineffective trial counsel, notwithstanding his substantial rights are not affected thereby. (See People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 300 [finding appellant's failure to be present at the readback of testimony did not affect the defendant's substantial rights].)
On the merits, a trial court properly could have declined to modify the existing definition of "bodily harm" by the reference to "moderate injury." The charge given, "Great bodily harm" requires more than an insignificant or trivial injury and is a correct and complete statement of law requiring no further definition. (People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 108-109; 12022.7, subd. (f) ["As used in this section, 'great bodily injury' means a significant or substantial physical injury"]; see People v. Clark (2011)
Page 17
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.
