P. v. Sands
Defendant Michael Laurence Sands appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of carjacking, two counts of second degree robbery, two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and one count of making criminal threats. The jury also found Sands personally used a firearm in the commission of each of those offenses. Sands argues his convictions for assault with a semiautomatic firearm must be reversed because the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must find the semiautomatic firearm that he used was loaded.
We affirm. The trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 875 on the offense of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. That instruction accurately informed the jury that before finding Sands guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, it must find that at the time Sands acted, “he had the present ability to apply force with a semiautomatic firearm to a person.†Sands did not request that the trial court provide any further clarification to the jury and thus forfeited the argument that such clarification was required. Sands concedes substantial evidence supported the reasonable inference the semiautomatic firearm was loaded at the time of the offenses. We find no error.
Comments on P. v. Sands