Error and/or relief
The trial court failed to instruct the jury about how a defendant who is an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense.
First Holding:
The defendant’s defense was self-defense, and the trial court accordingly instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense under CALCRIM No. 505. Over his objection, the trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 regarding an initial aggressor’s right to self-defense. However, the trial court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3471 about how an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense. Omission of that language was prejudicial error. Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.
Authority:
People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210
Second Holding:
A trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. This includes a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense if it appears the defendant is relying on such a defense or if substantial evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.
Authority:
People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021
People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469
People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949
Third Holding:
It is error to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39–40
People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129
People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331
People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835
People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982
Fourth Holding:
As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends the defendant forfeited his contention that it was error to omit the language on how an initial aggressor can regain his right to self defense, because he failed to ask the trial court to include the omitted language. Assuming forfeiture applies, we nonetheless may decline to apply it if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Because the contention affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider it.
Authority:
PEN 1259
People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 [party may not complain on appeal that instruction correct in law and responsive to evidence was too general or incomplete in absence of request for clarifying language]
People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949
Fifth Holding:
When a defendant engages in simple assault or trespass and his opponent responds with deadly force so suddenly that the person cannot withdraw, a defendant may immediately use deadly force in self-defense. The qualification in the language omitted from the jury instruction thus applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. But if one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launch a deadly counterattack in self-defense, the original assailant cannot slay his adversary in self-defense unless he has first, in good faith, declined further combat, and has fairly notified him that he has abandoned the affray.
Authority:
People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 301
People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 626–627
People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal. 451, 464 [Where one is the first wrongdoer, but his unlawful act is not felonious, as a simple assault upon the person of another, or a mere trespass upon his property, even though forcible, and this unlawful act is met by a counter assault of a deadly character, the right of self-defense to the first wrongdoer is not lost]
People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949
People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 196, 201
People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 249-250 [exception did not apply where defendant approached victim with cocked gun]
Sixth Holding:
We apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Chapman to determine whether the error merits reversal. The Chapman standard requires us to determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. We must reverse the conviction under that standard unless we conclude that no rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial court could have had a reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant, absent the instructional error.
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 303
People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 953
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831
People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 244
Seventh Holding:
Simple assault requires an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to another person, and the crime does not require actual physical injury or contact to the victim.
Authority:
People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 503
Eighth Holding:
An instruction is inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case if it requires acknowledging, if only inferentially, existence of facts which defendant otherwise denied. The language omitted from the instruction was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense.
Authority:
People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1168–1169
People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [trial court has no duty to instruct on affirmative defense inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case]