People v. Frandsen
196 Cal. App. 4th 266
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Benjamin Frandsen participated in the long false imprisonment and violent death scheme against Wertzberger and Neeman.
- Huang and Frandsen, after detaining the victims, traveled to Home Depot to procure items used in the plan.
- Neeman was killed by suffocation after a confrontation with Huang; Wertzberger’s cause of death was undetermined, but the pair buried both in a desert grave.
- The trial court severed Frandsen’s trial from Huang’s; Frandsen was retried and convicted of second‑degree murder (Neeman) and involuntary manslaughter (Wertzberger).
- Appellant challenged several instructions (imperfect self‑defense, mutual combat, and “sudden escalation”), plus sentencing procedures under Apprendi/Sandoval.
- Appellant appealed on multiple asserted errors, including improper self‑defense instruction and the upper term calculation under Penal Code §1170(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imperfect self‑defense and sudden escalation | Frandsen argues the imperfect self‑defense instruction was incomplete without a sudden escalation exception. | People contends no sudden escalation exception applies to imperfect self‑defense. | No reversible error; escalation not factually triggered and exception not applicable. |
| Witness Griffin’s prior consistent statement | Griffin’s prior consistent statements should have been admitted to rebut self‑defense impressions. | Exclusion was proper as Griffin’s state of mind was not material to appellant’s conduct. | Exclusion of Griffin’s first-trial testimony was proper; impeachment occurred within permissible bounds. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor misstated the record by implying Neeman/Wertzberger burglarized the house. | Any misstatement was harmless since state of mind of perpetrators, not the burglars’ guilt, was relevant. | Harmless error; testimony focus remained on the defendants’ conduct and state of mind. |
| Contrived self‑defense instruction | CALCRIM No. 3472 unduly constrains self‑defense when appellant did not initiate a fight. | No forfeiture or reversible error; instruction correct and supported by evidence. | Not reversible; appropriate given the evidence and doctrine. |
| Upper term for involuntary manslaughter | Imposition of the upper term based on facts not submitted to a jury violates Apprendi and ex post facto principles. | Sandoval authorizes judicially found facts for upper terms after §1170 amendments. | Lawful under Sandoval and §1170(b); no constitutional or ex post facto violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vasquez, 136 Cal.App.4th 1176 (2006) (imperfect self‑defense limits when defendant’s wrongful conduct creates justification for victim’s response)
- In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (1994) (felon cannot invoke self‑defense where his wrongful conduct justified victim’s attack)
- People v. Szadziewicz, 161 Cal.App.4th 823 (2008) (cannot rely on imperfect self‑defense when victim’s deadly force is lawful)
- People v. Randle, 35 Cal.4th 987 (2005) (imperfect defense of another; fleeing felon context; victim’s unlawful force first contemplated)
- People v. Vasquez, 136 Cal.App.4th 1176 (2006) (imperfect self‑defense; distinction between unlawful vs. lawful force by victim)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (2007) (retroactive application of §1170(b) as construed; upper term authority post‑amendment)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (statutory enactments not controlling for judicial decisions on punishment terms)
- In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (1994) (reiterated limitation on imperfect self‑defense for felons)
- People v. Quach, 116 Cal.App.4th 294 (2004) (premise that victim’s unlawful force may restore aggressor’s right of self‑defense)
- People v. Hardin, 85 Cal.App.4th 625 (2000) (self‑defense in home context; anticipatory unlawful conduct impact)