People v. Lopez
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 248
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lopez and Flemming were convicted after a jury trial of second degree murder (Flemming) and attempted murder (count 2) stemming from a drive-by shooting that killed Jimenez and wounded Mirelez.
- The jury found Flemming personally discharged a firearm causing death (count 1) and count 2 involved a firearm enhancement; Lopez was deemed an armed principal on both counts.
- A motion for a new trial was denied; Lopez received a total term of 15 years to life plus eight years, Flemming received 40 years to life plus 27 years, with various fees/fines imposed.
- Defendants appealed asserting errors in jury instructions, particularly regarding the imminence requirement for imperfect self-defense, amplified by a prosecutor-proffered special instruction.
- The trial court ultimately instructed on voluntary manslaughter for imperfect self-defense and included a special instruction on imminent danger; the appellate court evaluates these instructions for correctness and impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM 505/571/604 misstate imminent peril when paired with the prosecutor's special instruction. | Lopez (and Flemming) argue imminent peril is misdefined, conflicting with CALJIC 5.12/5.17 concept of immediate danger. | The defense contends the instructions incorrectly eliminate imperfect self-defense by conflating imminent danger with future harm. | No reversible error; instructions correctly stated the law in common usage and the prosecutor's instruction did not undercut them. |
| Whether the trial court's definition of imminent danger violated the defendant’s rights to imperfect self-defense. | Lopez asserts the imminent danger concept was improperly defined. | Flemming maintains the court’s imminent danger framework was improper against imperfect self-defense. | Imminent danger defined adequately; no reasonable likelihood jurors misunderstood the law as applied. |
| Whether any instructional error warrants reversal despite absence of a proper objection. | Appellants claim error existed, regardless of objection, due to lesser-included offense instructions. | The absence of objection should bar review unless substantial rights were affected. | Not forfeited; in this context, the instructions were required and not defective; no invited error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aris, 215 Cal.App.3d 1178 (Cal. App. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (imminent peril definition tied to immediate danger concepts)
- People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (Cal. 1996) (imminent danger required for self-defense)
- In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (Cal. 1994) (fear of imminent danger required; fear of future harm insufficient)
- People v. Cruz, 44 Cal.4th 636 (Cal. 2008) (malice and imperfect self-defense elements; imminence principles)
- People v. Randle, 35 Cal.4th 987 (Cal. 2005) (perfect/imperfect self-defense; imminence requirement)
- People v. Rodriguez, 28 Cal.4th 543 (Cal. 2002) (common usage vs. legal definitions in jury instructions)
- People v. Richie, 28 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. App. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (definitional clarity of terms not technical unless required)
- People v. Navarette, 30 Cal.4th 458 (Cal. 2003) (instructional terms defined for jury understanding)
- People v. Estrada, 11 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 1995) (clarification of terms with technical legal meaning)
- People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2004) (instructional accuracy and surrounding case law)