People v. James
238 Cal. App. 4th 794
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dennis Lamar James was charged with aggravated mayhem and assault causing great bodily injury for a February 19, 2012 attack; he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Two court-appointed psychologists evaluated James; Dr. Griffith testified at trial that James suffered a psychotic episode and was unaware of his actions, while Dr. Howard attributed behavior to probable drug-induced psychosis and rejected legal insanity.
- At the guilt phase the prosecution produced eyewitness and police testimony describing violent, seemingly aimless behavior, incoherent mumbling, and two utterances by James: “kiss me” (to the victim) and “Tase me” (to an officer).
- The trial court admitted Dr. Griffith’s testimony at the guilt phase for limited purposes (specific intent / consciousness) but refused the defense’s requested unconsciousness instruction (CALCRIM No. 3425), ruling that psychosis/altered reality was not equivalent to legally cognizable unconsciousness.
- The jury convicted James of mayhem (lesser included) and assault but later found him not guilty by reason of insanity in the bifurcated sanity phase; he was committed and appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on unconsciousness because substantial evidence supported that defense and the issue should have been submitted to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing an unconsciousness instruction | The prosecution argued psychosis/altered reality is not equivalent to unconsciousness and pointed to James’s responsive utterances as evidence of awareness | James argued Dr. Griffith’s testimony and observational evidence raised reasonable doubt that he was conscious/aware during the attack, requiring the instruction | Reversed: substantial evidence supported unconsciousness and the jury should have been instructed; psychosis/unsound mind can ground the defense |
| Admissibility of psychiatric evidence at guilt phase | Prosecution argued mental-state testimony was only proper at sanity phase and should not have been admitted at guilt phase | Defense noted no contemporaneous objection and that expert testimony was admissible to show lack of specific intent or consciousness at guilt phase | Court held admission was proper here (no objection; testimony relevant to consciousness and specific intent) |
| Impact of voluntary intoxication on unconsciousness defense | State argued evidence of drug use could negate an unconsciousness defense or limit it to negating specific intent | Defense relied on expert that psychosis was not substance-induced and emphasized lack of toxicology | Court explained unconsciousness is a complete defense unless caused by voluntary intoxication; voluntary intoxication may bar the defense for general intent crimes and may be presented at retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379 (2007) (discusses limits of unconsciousness instruction where defendant showed awareness despite psychosis)
- People v. Coogler, 71 Cal.2d 153 (1969) (recognizes unconsciousness instruction may be required where defendant lacked awareness due to dissociative reaction)
- People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326 (1901) (early precedent limiting unconsciousness defense to persons of sound mind)
- People v. Hardy, 33 Cal.2d 52 (1948) (discusses presumption of consciousness and availability of unconsciousness defense separate from insanity)
- People v. Kelly, 10 Cal.3d 565 (1973) (explains that unconsciousness from voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense to general intent crimes)