People v. Fidler CA4/1

── People v. Fidler CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Fidler CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D087149 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1500770) JAMES DANIEL FIDLER III, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, James S. Hawkins, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed as modified and remanded with instructions. Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Collette C. Cavalier and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  James Daniel Fidler shot his wife, Jeanette Reyes, in the head during a purported methamphetamine-fueled hallucination. He left the firearm next to one of his four young children and drove Jeanette to the hospital, where she later died from her injuries. Relevant here, the jury found Fidler guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and four counts of felony child endangerment (§ 273a(a) (counts 3 through 6). On appeal, Fidler contends the trial court prejudicially erred in omitting the definition of criminal negligence from CALCRIM No. 580, the instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. We, however, conclude otherwise. Although the instructional omission was error, Fidler conceded he acted with criminal negligence on the night of the shooting. Failing to instruct the jury as to the definition of criminal negligence, therefore, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Fidler also argues the court’s omission of the element of criminal negligence while instructing the jury regarding both felony and misdemeanor child endangerment necessitates reversal. Because Fidler conceded he committed the lesser included offense of misdemeanor child endangerment, which includes the element of criminal negligence, he has conceded acting with criminal negligence. Although the court improperly instructed the jury by omitting the element, we conclude the error was not prejudicial. Finally, Fidler claims substantial evidence does not support the jury’s finding that he endangered two of his children, the four-year-old who was asleep in a bedroom and the two-year-old who Fidler and Jeanette’s uncle found in the family car after the shooting. The parties agree that the four- year-old, the three-year-old (who was wrapped in a blanket with the loaded firearm), and the six-month-old were at the house during the killing and when Fidler left the property to take Jeanette to the hospital. The record is 2 silent as to the two-year-old’s location during the shooting but firmly establishes he was not at the house with the unattended firearm. Therefore, we disagree with Fidler’s argument as to the four-year-old (count 3) but agree that his conviction as to the two-year-old under count 5 is not supported by substantial evidence.1 Accordingly, we strike the conviction on count 5 and affirm the judgment as modified. I. On May 6, 2015, Fidler returned home after consuming methamphetamine and