People v. Mehserle
206 Cal. App. 4th 1125
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mehserle, a BART officer, shot Oscar Grant on a crowded Fruitvale platform while attempting to arrest him for misdemeanor resisting an officer.
- Mehserle testified he intended to use a Taser but accidentally drew and fired his handgun, killing Grant who was unarmed and prone.
- Jury acquitted Mehserle of murder and voluntary manslaughter, but convicted involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence, with a firearm enhancement initially but later dismissed as to the enhancement.
- Defendant carried two weapons: a black Sig Sauer handgun and a bright yellow Taser; the handgun was bolstered on the dominant side, the Taser on the nondominant side.
- Evidence included surveillance and cell phone videos showing the detention scene where Grant was restrained, Grant stated he could not breathe, and Mehserle eventually fired into Grant’s back at 2:11 a.m.
- The trial court and appellate court addressed whether the conduct could meet the California criminal-negligence standard, and whether new evidence or evidentiary rulings affected the verdict and probation decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal negligence | Mehserle argues no gross negligence; it was an accidental shooting. | There is a higher standard for police line-of-duty cases borrowed from out-of-state law. | California standard applied; evidence supports criminal negligence. |
| New trial based on newly discovered handgun/Taser confusion evidence | Two additional cross-draw confusion incidents could change outcome. | New evidence was admissible and probative of tragic accident. | No abuse of discretion; new evidence would not likely render different retrial result. |
| Admission of evidence about post-shooting Taser policy changes | BART policy changes show training/policy issues relevant to negligence. | Remedial measures are probative to policy but not negligent conduct. | Exclusion under 352 not abuse; policy changes not admissible to prove negligence. |
| Alleged instructional errors | Instructions misstate law or misdirect on criminal negligence and liability. | Instructions were correct and supported theory of criminal negligence. | No prejudicial instructional error; unanimity not required given theories. |
| Probation denial based on Grant’s death | Probation denial improperly hinges on victim’s death alone. | Court properly weighed multiple factors including impact on victim’s family. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Barnes, 42 Cal.3d 284 (Cal. 1986) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- People v. Neufer, 30 Cal.App.4th 244 (Cal. App. 1994) (presumption in support of judgment when reviewing evidence)
- Penny, 44 Cal.2d 861 (Cal. 1955) (definition of criminal negligence in homicide)
- People v. Rodriguez, 186 Cal.App.2d 433 (Cal. App. 1960) (early definition of criminal negligence as risk of great harm)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (implied malice vs. gross negligence; subjective vs. objective standard)
- Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1993) (reiterates reasonable-person standard and context in negligence)
- People v. Sidwell, 29 Cal.App.4th 12 (Cal. App. 1915) (involuntary manslaughter involving police officer handling of weapon)
- People v. Velez, 144 Cal.App.3d 558 (Cal. App. 1983) (disregard for human life in pointing a potentially hazardous weapon)
- In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444 (Cal. 1969) (firearm handling leading to involuntary manslaughter; negligence standard)
- People v. Cazares, 190 Cal.App.3d 833 (Cal. App. 1987) (negligent discharge of firearm in dangerous context)
- Lockheed Shipbuilding & Constr. Co., 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 (Cal. App. 1975) (remedial-measures evidence in criminal trial discussed under 1151)