Error and/or relief
The evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction on count 2 for attempted voluntary manslaughter, and that conviction must be reversed. We also conclude the court’s use of the pre-AB 333 pattern jury instruction was prejudicial. This requires reversal of the gang enhancements, the substantive gang offense (count 7), and the related section 12022.53(d) and (e)(1) gang related firearm use enhancements.
First Holding:
Attempted voluntary manslaughter requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to kill the named victim, although the intent is mitigated by heat of passion or imperfect self-defense.
Authority:
People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 583
Second Holding:
The jury must agree unanimously the defendant is guilty of a specific crime. When the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime under a single count, either the prosecution must elect the act relied upon or the court must instruct the jury to agree on the same criminal act. The unanimity instruction exists to prevent jurors from convicting a defendant based on different instances of conduct, thereby ensuring all 12 jurors are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the same act constituted the offense. A unanimity instruction is required when the record shows evidence of more than one crime that could support conviction under a single count. But if the evidence shows only a single discrete crime, no instruction is necessary.
Authority:
People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 142
People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132
People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 877
People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 569
People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 727
People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281
Third Holding:
Determining whether a particular instruction was required presents a predominantly legal mixed question of law and fact. We therefore review claims of instructional error de novo.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568
People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579
People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569
Fourth Holding:
In a criminal case, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case. The correctness of jury instructions is determined by considering the charge as a whole, not by viewing individual instructions in isolation.
Authority:
People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953
People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192
Fifth Holding:
To determine whether the trial court properly instructed on the kill zone theory, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Under this standard, the question is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendant intended to kill everyone within the zone of harm as a means of killing the primary target.
Authority:
People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 193, 203 [Without substantial evidence showing the defendant acted with intent to kill a primary target, the essential basis for a concurrent intent analysis is not satisfied]
Sixth Holding:
The standard for assessing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is highly deferential. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence; that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting our review, we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept all logical inferences the trial court could have drawn from circumstantial evidence. The question is not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence supports the trier of fact’s finding. The judgment must be upheld unless it appears that, under no hypothesis whatsoever, is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.
Authority:
People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508
People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848–849 [we resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment, and all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision]
People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919, superseded by statute on other grounds
People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 411
People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 139
People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 329
Seventh Holding:
The jury was instructed on the gang participation law as it existed at the time of trial. Because subsequent amendments under AB 333 changed the elements considerably and the defendant’s judgment is not final, the gang-related convictions must be retried under the new law.
Authority:
People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206–1207
People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394
People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 610