 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Ceja6/23/1994
curring.
JOHNSON, J.:
I wholeheartedly concur in the judgment and my colleagues' holding on the imperfect self-defense issue--so far as it goes. I write separately solely to register my view a trial court must also instruct on "imperfect self-defense" whenever it determines a "perfect self-defense" instruction is appropriate. In explaining my reasons, it will be helpful to begin with self-defense, both the perfect and imperfect varieties.
California Penal Code section 197, subdivision (3) makes the killing of a person justifiable if committed ". . . when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design . . . to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; . . ." (1 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Defenses, 241; CALJIC 5.12; People v. McDonnel (1949) 94 Cal. App. 2d 885, 211 P.2d 910.) When this "actual" and "reasonable" belief exists it constitutes an absolute defense, relieving the defendant of criminal responsibility for the homicide.
As the majority opinion explains, the courts also have recognized a related mental state which reduces, but does not eliminate, the defendant's culpability. It is usually called "imperfect self-defense." The California Supreme Court fully explained this concept in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 668, 160 Cal. Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1.) "An honest but unreasonable belief that it was necessary to defend oneself from imminent peril to life or great bodily injury negates malice aforethought, the mental element necessary for murder, so that the chargeable offense is reduced to manslaughter." (Id. at p. 674, italics added.)
Again in a very recent and exhaustive opinion, the California Supreme Court further refined and upheld the continued viability of "imperfect self-defense." (In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 768.) Quoting extensively and approvingly from this court's People v. De Leon [opinion (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 815 (94 D.A.R. at pp. 6609-6611)], the Supreme Court concluded the Legislature did not eliminate "imperfect self-defense" when it abolished the "diminished capacity defense" in 1981. (94 D.A.R. at p. 6612.) The high court did, however, alter somewhat the terminology used to define "imperfect self defense." "Although Flannel and other opinions referred to an 'honest belief' we shall use the more precise term 'actual belief' because it avoids the confusing suggestion inherent in the phrase 'honest belief' that a person could have a 'dishonest belief', i.e., that a person could believe something he does not believe." (94 D.A.R. at p. 6608, emphasis in original.)
The trial court's decision to instruct on self-defense but not on imperfect self-defense in this case may have been based on its misunderstanding of an admittedly subtle distinction--how mistakes of fact affect the doctrine of self-defense itself. LaFave & Scott offer this explanation:
"When his belief is reasonable . . . he may be mistaken in his belief and still have the defense.
Thus one may be justified in shooting to death an adversary who, having threatened to kill him, reaches for his pocket as if for a gun, though it later appears that he had no gun and that he was only reaching for his handkerchief." (LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed. 1986) Justification & Excuse 5.7(c), p. 457, italics added.)
While a defendant may be mistaken and still claim self-defense, that mistake must be reasonable. (See State v. Kelly (N.J. 1984) 97 N.J. 178, 478 A.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|