How has the jury been instructed on the definition of a deadly weapon in the context of the enhancement of the charge of assault with a deadlyweapon?

Although the jury was not instructed with CALCRIM No. 3145, the jury was informed of the elements of the deadly weapon enhancement through other instructions and the prosecutor's argument. The jury was properly instructed on the definition of a deadly weapon with CALCRIM No. 875, the instruction for the charge of assault with a deadly weapon, which told the jury that "[a] deadly weapon other than a firearm is any object, instrument, or weapon that is used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury." The jury was informed also that the deadly weapon must be "intentionally displayed in a menacing manner . . . ." (People v. Wims, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 302.) In urging the jurors to find defendant personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offenses in counts 1 and 2, the prosecutor conveyed to the jury the omitted element by reading from CALCRIM No. 3145. The prosecutor explained, "Someone personally uses a deadly weapon, . . . deadly or dangerous weapon if he intentionally displays the weapon in a menacing manner." The prosecutor then argued defendant was "personally using this knife" because he was "holding it in a dangerous or menacing manner" as he threatened T.H. Thus, much of the omitted instruction was covered by the court's other instructions or the prosecutor's

Page 6

argument. (See People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831-832 [where court omitted robbery instruction, other instructions given and the parties' description of the offense's elements in argument to the jury were factors considered in determining prejudice].)