69 Cal.App.5th 978
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- In December 2018 outside an Oakland Greyhound station, Anthony Morales stabbed Eric McMillian; the stab wound penetrated McMillian’s abdomen and killed him.
- Morales was carrying a 7.5-inch kitchen knife (in his backpack) and a butterfly knife; he testified he carried them for self-defense and that McMillian seized his backpack and threatened him when asking for a cigarette.
- Security video shows Morales step forward and stab McMillian in a single backhanded motion while McMillian’s arms were at his sides; McMillian did not brandish a weapon or physically strike Morales before the stab.
- Morales claimed he acted in self-defense (and imperfect self-defense) and presented PTSD expert testimony; toxicology showed Morales had methamphetamine, and McMillian had cocaine and other substances.
- After a first mistrial, a second jury convicted Morales of second-degree murder with a true finding he used a knife; the trial court sentenced him to 16 years to life.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (malice; self-defense) | Evidence (video, witness, autopsy) shows Morales acted with implied malice and jury could reject self-defense; conviction supported | Morales contends evidence insufficient because his PTSD and fear of robbery negated conscious disregard or supported imperfect self-defense | Conviction affirmed; substantial evidence supports implied malice and jury could disbelieve self-defense testimony |
| Self-defense instruction re: robbery (requested pinpoint that robbery alone justifies deadly force) | Court properly required fear of death or great bodily injury; robbery per se does not automatically permit deadly force | Morales argued Ceballos and CALCRIM bracketed language required inclusion of robbery as an alternative basis for self-defense | Denial of the requested robbery formulation was proper; instruction given (fear of imminent death/great bodily harm) encompassed Morales’ theory; error, if any, harmless |
| Imperfect self-defense instruction and malice negation | CALCRIM No. 571 adequately explained imperfect self-defense reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating malice | Morales argued instruction should state that an honest but excessive use of deadly force (reasonable belief in danger but excessive force) also reduces murder to manslaughter | Instruction adequate: imperfect self-defense applies only where the defendant’s belief, if reasonable, would permit deadly force; jury adequately instructed that imperfect self-defense reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction / ineffective assistance | Trial court correctly refused CALCRIM No. 625 because no substantial evidence that Morales’ methamphetamine use affected formation of intent; counsel’s tactical choices reasonable | Morales argued toxicology supported instruction and counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit further intoxication evidence | Refusal affirmed: evidence did not show intoxication affected intent to kill; ineffective-assistance claim fails on record (counsel could reasonably decline that strategy) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal.3d 470 (1974) (interprets Penal Code §197; deadly force to resist felony limited to forcible/atrocious crimes that reasonably threaten death or great bodily harm)
- People v. Valencia, 43 Cal.4th 268 (2008) (imperfect self-defense available only where the defendant’s belief, if reasonable, would support perfect self-defense)
- People v. Turk, 164 Cal.App.4th 1361 (2008) (voluntary intoxication cannot negate implied malice)
- People v. Salas, 37 Cal.4th 967 (2006) (instruction on voluntary intoxication warranted only if substantial evidence shows intoxication affected formation of specific intent)
- People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 635 (1997) (mere evidence of intoxication insufficient absent proof intoxication affected intent)
- People v. Genovese, 168 Cal.App.4th 817 (2008) (failure to explain imperfect self-defense as negating malice is immaterial where instructions reduce murder to manslaughter)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (2009) (explains physical and mental components of implied malice)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (1994) (standards for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)