People v. Larsen
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 762
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Chad Larsen was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder, with a 25 years to life sentence for conspiracy and a concurrent nine-year term for solicitation.
- Larsen contends the trial court violated his right to present a defense by not giving CALCRIM No. 3428 (mental disorder and intent) and by omitting instructions on entrapment and coconspirator liability, and by denying a pre-sentencing recusal motion.
- Evidence showed Larsen, while jailed, corresponded with his father and contacted fellow inmates to plan Jane Doe’s murder to prevent her testimony, including payments, maps, notes, and recorded conversations.
- The defense introduced Dr. Catherine Silver, an expert who diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and testified about social naiveté, manipulation vulnerability, and role-playing tendencies relevant to Larsen’s alleged mental state.
- The majority held that the trial court erred by not giving CALCRIM No. 3428 but concluded the error was not prejudicial under Watson review, and affirmed the convictions.
- Concurring and dissenting opinions debated whether CALCRIM No. 3428 should have been given, but the dispositive outcome was the affirmed judgments on conspiracy and solicitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 3428 was required | Larsen argues the evidence of Asperger’s justified the instruction. | Larsen contends the court failed to provide a crucial defense instruction. | Instruction required; trial court erred |
| Whether the instructional error was prejudicial | Error violated due process and undermined defense credibility. | Error was not prejudicial under Watson standard. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Watson |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Musselwhite, 17 Cal.4th 1216 (Cal. 1998) (supports use of CALCRIM 3428 for mental disorder evidence)
- People v. Cox, 23 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2000) (limits expert testimony on ultimate mental state questions)
- People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48 (Cal. 2000) (discusses pinpoint instruction review and harmless-error standards)
- People v. Blackssher, 52 Cal.4th 769 (Cal. 2011) (articulates Watson harmless-error standard for instructional errors)
- People v. Nunn, 50 Cal.App.4th 1357 (Cal. App. 1996) (limits expert testimony on mental state at time of crime)
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (Cal. 2005) (admonishes on admissibility of certain mental-state testimony)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (standard for evaluating constitutional instructional error)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for instructional error at federal level)