People v. Dominguez, 494 P.3d 682

Two defendants (Dominguez and Torres), members of a neighborhood tagging crew (Running the Streets, RTS), fired 21 rounds in 3.7 seconds at a small enclosed group at an apartment complex; Angel Sanabria was killed and Joseph Luna wounded; two others were missed.
Defendants admitted they were the shooters but testified they fired in panic/fear after Sanabria (an Eastside associate) shouted a gang challenge (“Where the fuck you from… This is Eastside”) and lunged while reaching toward his waistband.
Trial court instructed on self-defense and imperfect self-defense (voluntary manslaughter on the imperfect-self-defense theory) but refused defendants’ requested heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter instructions.
Jury convicted both of second-degree murder (Sanabria) and attempted murder (Luna, Coronado); acquitted on first‑degree murder and found premeditation allegations not true for attempted murders; sentences imposed.
On appeal the court held the trial court erred by refusing the heat-of-passion instruction and that the pre-Canizales kill‑zone instruction given was legally inadequate; the Attorney General conceded the kill‑zone instruction was prejudicially erroneous.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for new trial on the affected convictions (except those on which the jury acquitted).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion	The People argued the gang challenge/words were insufficient objectively and the evidence did not show the subjective ‘‘strong passion’’ required	Defendants argued the combination of the gang challenge, expert testimony about its violent meaning, Sanabria’s lunging and apparent reach for a weapon, and their panic/fear supported heat-of-passion instructions	Court: Reversible error — substantial evidence supported both objective and subjective provocation; jury should have been instructed on heat-of-passion (in addition to self-defense and imperfect self-defense)
Whether the pre-Canizales “kill zone” instruction and the evidence supported attempted murder convictions for non-primary targets	People (at trial) relied on kill‑zone theory; at appeal the Attorney General conceded the jury received an inadequate instruction under Canizales but argued evidence still sufficient to support convictions	Defendants argued the instruction was legally erroneous under Canizales and convictions should be reversed for insufficiency	Court: Instruction was prejudicially erroneous as given; but evidence (close quarters, 21 rapid shots into an enclosed small area) was sufficient to permit retrial on attempted murder under a proper kill‑zone instruction

People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (Supreme Court clarifying that kill‑zone theory applies only when the only reasonable inference is intent to create a zone of fatal harm and identifying relevant factors)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (heat-of-passion and imperfect self-defense instructions may both be required; passion need not be anger)
People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (provocation assessed by whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would react without reflection)
People v. Enraca, 53 Cal.4th 735 (gang challenge alone did not support heat-of-passion where defendant remained calm)
People v. Thomas, 218 Cal.App.4th 630 (fear/panic plus victim lunging and reaching for a weapon supported heat-of-passion instruction)
People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal.3d 307 (where provocation equates to justification/self-defense, a heat-of-passion instruction may be unnecessary)
People v. Millbrook, 222 Cal.App.4th 1122 (instructing on self-defense, imperfect self-defense and heat-of-passion appropriate where evidence supports multiple theories)
In re Hampton, 48 Cal.App.5th 463 (panic testimony and victim lunging supported heat-of-passion instruction)
People v. Moye, 47 Cal.4th 537 (discussing imperfect self-defense and voluntary manslaughter distinctions)