People v. Boatman
2013 WL 6314914
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Benjamin Boatman shot and killed his girlfriend Rebecca Marth at close range; he gave multiple inconsistent statements, at times admitting he cocked a loaded revolver and that it fired, and claimed the shooting was accidental.
- Victim had been shot in the face at about 12 inches; defendant attempted resuscitation and called for help; police found the revolver with one fired cartridge and five live rounds.
- Defendant was charged with first degree murder and possession of marijuana for sale; jury convicted of first degree murder and found true firearm and on-bail enhancement allegations.
- At trial the defense argued negligence/accident and presented defendant’s testimony about jokingly cocking the hammer; prosecution relied on implied malice from pointing a loaded gun and cocking the hammer.
- On appeal the court found evidence sufficient for malice (murder) but insufficient to support premeditation and deliberation, reduced conviction to second degree murder, and ordered the on-bail enhancement execution stayed pending resolution of the primary charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first degree murder (premeditation/deliberation) | Evidence (cocking a loaded gun, close-range shot, text messages indicating fight, timing after argument) permits inference of preexisting reflection | Killing was accidental or impulsive; absence of planning or strong motive meant only implied malice (second degree) supported | Reversed to second degree murder: substantial evidence of malice but insufficient to support premeditation and deliberation |
| Sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) | N/A (People opposed) | Court should have instructed because evidence of argument and defendant’s distress supported heat-of-passion theory | No duty: no substantial evidence of provocation intensity/duration; failure harmless under Watson |
| Use of CALCRIM No. 224 instead of No. 225 (circumstantial evidence instruction) | 224 was proper because prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence for motive and manner as well as intent | 225 should have been given because intent was the only element substantially resting on circumstantial evidence | Error to give 224 not 225, but harmless (inclusive instruction given) |
| On-bail enhancement (Pen. Code §12022.1) execution when primary charge dismissed without prejudice | Enhancement valid because defendant was on release pending another felony at the time | Enhancement should be stayed or stricken if primary not adjudicated / dismissed | Trial court erred by imposing enhancement without staying execution; modified to stay execution pending final resolution of primary charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence under due process)
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (Cal. 1968) (framework for assessing circumstantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation)
- People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164 (Cal. 1945) (distinction between malice and premeditation/deliberation; definitions)
- People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880 (Cal. 1945) (ejusdem generis and need for substantial reflection to show premeditation)
- People v. Koontz, 27 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 2002) (Anderson factors applied; planning, motive, and manner together can support first degree)
- People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792 (Cal. 2010) (reaffirming requirement of preexisting reflection to distinguish first from second degree)
- People v. Meloney, 30 Cal.4th 1145 (Cal. 2003) (procedures and options when secondary offense is adjudicated before primary for on-bail enhancement)
- People v. Rodriguez, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994) (harmlessness when a more inclusive circumstantial-evidence instruction is given)