People v. Bryant CA4/1
222 Cal. App. 4th 1196
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Amalia Catherine Bryant stabbed and killed her boyfriend during a struggle after she grabbed a kitchen knife; she claimed no intent to kill.
- Jury convicted Bryant of second-degree murder and found she personally used a deadly weapon; sentence 16 years to life.
- On appeal, Bryant argued the trial court erred by failing to instruct sua sponte on lesser offenses (involuntary manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter theories).
- This court initially reversed based on a Garcia-based voluntary manslaughter theory; the California Supreme Court reversed, holding a malice-free killing during an inherently dangerous assaultive felony is not voluntary manslaughter.
- The Supreme Court remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion and expressly declined to resolve whether an assault with a deadly weapon might support an involuntary-manslaughter instruction per Burroughs.
- On remand Bryant argued the trial court should have sua sponte instructed on involuntary manslaughter (Burroughs and “catch-all” manslaughter theory); the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding no sua sponte duty because the theory is not a well-established general principle.
Issues
| Issue | Bryant's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had sua sponte duty to instruct that an unlawful killing without malice during an assaultive felony equals involuntary manslaughter | Trial court should have instructed on involuntary manslaughter (relying on Burroughs and manslaughter as a "catch-all") | No authority supports such an instruction; any error would be harmless | No sua sponte duty: instruction not required because the theory is not a well-established legal principle (Flannel/Michaels) |
| Whether this court may consider Bryant’s new theory on remand | Bryant asked remand consideration; argued change in law and Justice Kennard’s concurrence support review | People argued issue was outside scope or forfeited as raised late | Court exercised discretion to consider the claim due to material change in law and shifting positions, but ruled against Bryant on merits |
| Whether Burroughs requires involuntary manslaughter instruction for noninherently-dangerous felonies | Bryant: Burroughs permits involuntary manslaughter where felony committed without due caution | People: No controlling authority applies to assaultive felony here | Court: No controlling authority extends Burroughs to compel sua sponte instruction in this context |
| Whether Bryant preserved an ineffective-assistance claim for failing to request the instruction | Bryant mentioned ineffective assistance in one sentence | People: claim forfeited and inadequately briefed | Court: Forfeited; declined to consider merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Flannel v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.3d 668 (Cal. 1979) (trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on legal doctrines that have been infrequently referenced and inadequately elucidated)
- Michaels v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 486 (Cal. 2002) (applies Flannel; no duty to instruct on doctrines not established by authority)
- People v. Bryant, 56 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 2013) (Supreme Court: killing without malice during inherently dangerous assaultive felony is not voluntary manslaughter; remanded)
- People v. Burroughs, 35 Cal.3d 824 (Cal. 1984) (unintentional homicide during commission of a noninherently dangerous felony may be involuntary manslaughter if felony committed without due caution)
- People v. Garcia, 162 Cal.App.4th 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (held unlawful killing during inherently dangerous felony could be at least voluntary manslaughter; disapproved insofar as inconsistent with Bryant)