People v. White

Mr. White was a prisoner at California's Department of Juvenile Facilities.  He got into a fight with another prisoner and was pepper-sprayed by guards.  While he was in the shower washing off the capcaicin, he removed two shower heads and threw them at a wire-reinforced window behind which were two guards.  The first throw broke the window and sent glass into the eye of one guard and the second throw cut the lip of another guard.  White was charged with, and convicted of, assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury.

The argument on appeal was that the evidence was insufficient to convict White because a reasonable person would not think that throwing a shower head at a reinforced window would directly, naturally, and probably result in somebody on the other side getting hit by something.  The Second District panel disagrees and affirms White's conviction.  The opinion is pretty straightforward.  There is one irritating line in the opinion, though.  The beginning of the opinion contains the following sentence: "It is not [']open season['] for prisoners to throw missles at prison guards, even when they are protected by reinforced glass."  Really?  It isn't?  First, we should expect an appellate court to be able to spell "missiles".  Second, White never made such an argument, rather he made a legitimate legal argument which, convincing or not, is capable of being addressed head-on. I don't know whether Justice Yegan was just trying to be cute or if he truly is wont to employ ignoratio elenchi in his legal analysis, but it certainly does not increase confidence in the judiciary when published opinions contain such sophistry.