People v. Hunter, G051942

Background

Hunter and Paschall were convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder under the provocative‑acts doctrine for the death of accomplice Desmond Brown during a botched jewelry‑store robbery; each sentenced to 25 years‑to‑life plus a 5‑year prior‑conviction enhancement.
The robbery team included Avery (armed intruder whose conduct was alleged to have precipitated the shooting), Brown (unarmed, holding a cell phone), and others; storeowner Gulvartian and manager Pashaian shot Brown during the melee.
Midtrial defendants sought disclosure of a pretrial witness interview that codefendant Clark Sr.’s attorney (Bittar) and his investigator conducted with Gulvartian (and possibly Pashaian) and/or to call Bittar to testify about it.
Bittar had previously declined to share the interview, asserting attorney work‑product protection; the trial court reviewed the matter in camera and denied disclosure and the request to call Bittar.
Defendants argued the interview was critical impeachment material on why Gulvartian/Pashaian shot Brown (bearing on provocative‑acts vicarious liability) and that withholding it violated their right to a fair trial/confrontation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) codefendant discovery is not mandated by the discovery statutes and qualified work‑product protection applies to attorney‑directed witness interviews; (2) defendants failed to show the good‑cause/constitutional exceptions required to overcome that protection; and (3) substantial evidence supported provocative‑acts liability.

Issues

Issue	People / Respondent's Position	Hunter & Paschall (Defendants) Position	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to produce or allow testimony about a codefendant attorney’s witness interview (work‑product and codefendant discovery)	Disclosure not required: interview is attorney work product; Penal Code provides no reciprocal discovery among codefendants; defendants failed to show constitutional necessity or unfair prejudice to overcome qualified protection	Interview likely contained impeaching statements (conducted partly in Arabic) critical to confronting/impeaching Gulvartian/Pashaian and proving Brown caused his own death; court should have compelled production or allowed Bittar testimony	Affirmed — no error: Coito/2018.030 work‑product protection applies; Thompson confirms no statutory codefendant discovery; defendants failed to show good cause, unfair prejudice, or constitutional deprivation to compel disclosure or testimony
Sufficiency of evidence for provocative‑acts murder (vicarious liability for Avery’s initial conduct)	Evidence (victims’ testimony that Avery’s attack influenced their responses and the rapid sequence of events) supports jury inference that Avery’s provocative act contributed to Brown’s death	Because Avery had been neutralized/was on the ground, Brown’s independent charge was the sole cause of his death; defendants cannot be vicariously liable under provocative‑acts doctrine	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports jury verdict: jury could reasonably find Avery’s armed advance set in motion the chain of events leading to Brown’s death

Key Cases Cited

People v. Briscoe, 92 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (defines provocative‑act murder and requirement that provocative act be something beyond ordinary participation)
People v. Cervantes, 26 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2001) (context for provocative acts that instigate lethal defensive responses)
People v. Garcia, 69 Cal.App.4th 1324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (multiple provocative acts and chain‑reaction causation analysis)
People v. Antick, 15 Cal.3d 79 (Cal. 1975) (no vicarious liability where deceased accomplice’s acts solely caused his own death)
Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2012) (attorney‑directed witness statements entitled to at least qualified work‑product protection; procedure for assessing absolute protection)
People v. Thompson, 1 Cal.5th 1043 (Cal. 2016) (statutory criminal discovery does not require disclosure between codefendants; constitutional exceptions narrowly framed)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence; does not impose duties on codefendants)