P. v. Heard CA2/1
Appellant Vincent Lamont Heard appeals from the judgment of his convictions of assault with a semi-automatic firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (b). Appellant argues that the court erred when it instructed the jury with a pinpoint instruction, stating “[i]n determining how a reasonable person would act, you cannot consider as a circumstance a mental state unique to the defendant which affected his ability to perceive the situation.” He complains that the instruction was misleading and invited the jury to ignore evidence regarding his defense of accident—that appellant lacked the intent to discharge the firearm. As we shall explain, we disagree. Notwithstanding our conclusion on the claim of instructional error, we remand this matter for resentencing in light of the Legislature’s recent amendment to the law regarding imposition of handgun enhancements. (§ 12022.5.)
Comments on P. v. Heard CA2/1