A judge's decision to withdraw an erroneously given instruction to the jury, during the jury's deliberations, did not prejudice the defendant and did not warrant reversal of the defendant's misdemeanor battery conviction. A California appellate court held that the judge's decision to withdraw the confusing instruction was proper under the circumstances.

The defendant was the coach of a community college women's basketball team. During a scrimmage, the defendant repeatedly forced one of the teams to perform "suicide" runs as punishment for the mistakes of one of that team's players. One of the punished players got into a physical confrontation with the player who had made the mistakes, and the defendant waited one and a half to six minutes before breaking up the fight.

The victim in this case, upset over the defendant's failure to break up the fight, walked off the court and sat on the bleachers. An oral confrontation ensued between the defendant and the victim, and the defendant "rapidly walked to" the victim. The victim claims that at that point the defendant hit her several times, causing her to fall from the bleachers. The defendant claimed that he only grabbed the victim's shoulders in an effort to calm her down.

The coach was charged with one count of battery with serious bodily injury and one count of battery on school property. The judge gave the jury an instruction relating to California's Education Code § 44807, which provides that school employees should not be subject to criminal prosecution for exercising "the same degree of physical control" over a student as a parent would in an effort to keep order. Section 44807, however, was not relevant since that section contains provisions barring teachers from using excessive force and reaffirming the right of students to be free of corporal punishment. After the jury asked questions indicating their confusion with the instruction, the prosecutor asked the judge to withdraw the instruction, and the judge agreed. The defense objected, but declined an offer from the judge to reopen arguments. Fourteen minutes later the jury returned a verdict, finding the defendant guilty of the second count (battery in school) but not guilty of the first count (battery with serious bodily injury).

The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in withdrawing the instruction to the jury during deliberations. The appellate court, however, disagreed, finding no prejudicial error. The court relied on the fact the instruction was not part of the theory of the defense's case, and that the jury had been understandably confused by the erroneous instruction. The court pointed out that the defendant could only claim he was prejudiced if the jury would have returned a not guilty verdict on the second count had the instruction not been withdrawn. However, the court pointed out that such a scenario was unlikely, especially considering that the jury returned a verdict a scant 14 minutes after the withdrawal, hardly long enough for a full reversal of opinions.