People v. Manzo
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle under Penal Code §246, plus related enhancements and ammunition possession.
- Defendant stood outside the vehicle and thrust a gun into the car before firing, striking Valadez and causing death.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the §246 conviction on the ground that discharging a firearm with the gun crossing the vehicle’s threshold did not occur “at” the vehicle.
- The defense urged the plain-text reading of §246 limited to the gun’s location at discharge; People urged a shooter-centric reading.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether §246 covers a defendant outside the vehicle when the firearm crosses the plane of the vehicle during discharge.
- The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding §246 covers shooting at an occupied vehicle even if the gun crosses the plane from outside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the word ‘at’ in §246 | People: ‘at’ measured from shooter; outside shooter can discharge into vehicle. | Manzo: liability depends on gun’s location at discharge. | §246 applies when shooter is outside and fires toward an occupied vehicle, even if gun crosses the plane. |
| Use of rule of lenity | Lenity not needed because text ambiguous. | Lenity should resolve ambiguity in defendant’s favor. | Lenity not invoked; extrinsic aids show legislative intent to criminalize the conduct. |
| Role of extrinsic aids | Extrinsic aids support broad interpretation. | Text alone supports narrower reading. | Extrinsic aids confirm Legislature intended §246 to cover the shooter outside the vehicle. |
| Consistency with prior case law | Prev. decisions ambiguous; consistent interpretation needed. | Existing cases align with a shooter-outside reading. | Courts generally treat the shooter’s outside position as controlling under §246. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stepney, 120 Cal.App.3d 1016 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1981) (insufficient evidence where firing occurred inside a dwelling)
- People v. Morales, 168 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (issue of inside/outside dwelling when firing from attached garage)
- People v. Jischke, 51 Cal.App.4th 552 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996) (shooting into an adjacent unit when firing from own unit)
- People v. Overman, 126 Cal.App.4th 1344 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) (shooting at occupants; not limited to direct hits)
- People v. Canty, 32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004) (use of extrinsic aids to ascertain legislative intent)
- People v. Avery, 27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002) (lenity not required when intent discernible without favoring the defendant)
- Lexin v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 1050 (Cal. 2010) (lenity as tie-breaking, not default rule)