People v. Lucero
246 Cal. App. 4th 750
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On May 24, 2012, Michael Lucero shot and killed Darius Silveira during a planned effort to obtain cash that had been in another man’s car; Lucero later admitted planning the robbery, shooting Silveira, disposing of the gun, returning to take money, and fleeing before surrendering.
- Lucero had used methamphetamine the night before and the morning of the killing and told police his actions were a "drug induced mistake." Police observed signs consistent with intoxication during his interview.
- A jury convicted Lucero of murder (count 1), second degree robbery (count 2), assault with a semi-automatic firearm (count 5), and related firearm enhancements under Penal Code § 12022.53(c) and (d); the court found prior strikes and sentenced him to a determinate term plus 105 years to life.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on felony murder (first degree murder based on robbery) but did not instruct sua sponte on second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.
- The trial court limited the jury’s consideration of voluntary intoxication to the specific-intent element of robbery only, and instructed that intoxication could not be used to negate other mental-state elements or to defeat the firearm enhancements.
- On appeal Lucero argued the court erred by (1) failing to instruct on lesser homicide offenses given evidence of voluntary intoxication, and (2) barring consideration of voluntary intoxication for the § 12022.53(c),(d) firearm enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lucero) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not instructing sua sponte on lesser included offenses (second-degree murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter) given evidence of voluntary intoxication | No reversible error; any failure to instruct on second-degree murder was harmless and there was no substantial evidence supporting manslaughter instructions | Trial court should have instructed on those lesser offenses because intoxication evidence could have negated required intent for felony murder and malice | Assumed error for second-degree murder but held it harmless under Watson; no duty to instruct on voluntary or involuntary manslaughter because no substantial evidence negating implied malice |
| Whether voluntary intoxication could be considered to negate the mental state for § 12022.53(c),(d) firearm enhancements | The enhancements require only general intent; intoxication is not admissible to negate general intent, so exclusion was proper | The word "intentionally" in the enhancement denotes specific intent, so intoxication evidence should be admissible to negate it | Affirmed: the court properly excluded voluntary intoxication for determining § 12022.53(c),(d) enhancements because they require only general intent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (trial court duty to instruct on lesser included offenses)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (harmless-error standard for omitted lesser-included instructions)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (California test for harmless error)
- People v. Turk, 164 Cal.App.4th 1361 (voluntary intoxication inadmissible to negate implied malice)
- People v. Hering, 20 Cal.4th 440 (distinction between specific and general intent crimes)
- People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444 (test for specific vs. general intent)
- People v. Wardell, 162 Cal.App.4th 1484 ("intentional" firearm use does not necessarily denote specific intent)