92 Cal.App.5th 307
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- At 3 a.m. Odell and Shalisha White argued in a motel parking lot; Myron Johnson, a larger, unarmed guest, confronted them after being disturbed.
- Security cameras captured most interactions but left a four‑second gap on the stairwell landing where the fatal shooting occurred.
- Odell retrieved a gun, loaded it, approached Johnson, a physical struggle occurred off‑camera on the landing, and Johnson was shot and killed.
- Odell was charged with felony possession of a firearm (§ 29800(a)(1)) and first‑degree murder; jury convicted him of felon in possession and second‑degree murder with a true finding that he personally and intentionally discharged the firearm.
- Trial: defense requested instructions on heat of passion, voluntary manslaughter, and self‑defense; court gave heat‑of‑passion (CALCRIM 570) but refused self‑defense and involuntary manslaughter instructions.
- On appeal Odell challenged the constitutionality of the felon‑possession statute under the Second Amendment, asserted instructional error (provocation/self‑defense/involuntary manslaughter), and sought correction of sentencing paperwork and custody credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Odell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constitutionality of §29800 (felon possession) under Second Amendment | Bruen and other precedent allow restrictions on non–law‑abiding persons; felons not protected | Statute infringes Second Amendment rights post‑Bruen | Statute constitutional; longstanding prohibitions on felon possession remain permissible; conviction affirmed |
| 2. Prosecutor’s closing remark on provocation / adequacy of CALCRIM 570 | Instruction given; remark at most ambiguous and, if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Prosecutor misstated law by implying provocation must cause an average person to kill, misleading jury | No reversible error; any ambiguity harmless because provocation theory was marginal and defense argued an accidental discharge theory |
| 3. Failure to instruct on self‑defense (perfect/imperfect) | No substantial evidence defendant actually believed he faced imminent death or great bodily injury; Odell was aggressor and pursued Johnson with a gun | Video and struggle could support a reasonable or at least actual belief of imminent harm | Trial court properly refused self‑defense instructions for lack of evidence of an actual belief of imminent danger |
| 4. Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter / sentencing credits and concurrency | Evidence showed deliberate procurement and use of a loaded gun—supports reckless conscious disregard; sentencing oral pronouncement ordered concurrent term and specified presentence credits | Odell argued for involuntary manslaughter instruction and contended sentencing minutes/abstract miscoded and credits miscalculated | Involuntary manslaughter instruction properly refused; court remanded to correct minute order/abstract to reflect concurrent 16‑month term and 659 days presentence credit |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (acknowledging longstanding prohibitions, including felon disarmament)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (framework for assessing Second Amendment challenges; rights are not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation and reaffirmation that longstanding regulations may be presumptively lawful)
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (objective average‑person standard for provocation; provocation need not be so extreme as to induce killing)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (heat of passion can be any intense emotion; jury instruction principles)
- People v. Gutierrez, 45 Cal.4th 789 (examples of provocation insufficient to support manslaughter instruction)
- People v. Thomas, 53 Cal.4th 771 (distinguishing involuntary manslaughter where defendant consciously disregards risk)
- People v. Thomas, 14 Cal.5th 327 (discussion of self‑defense and imperfect self‑defense doctrines)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- Watson v. State, 46 Cal.2d 818 (People v. Watson standard for non‑constitutional error)
- People v. Logan, 175 Cal. 45 (historical articulation that defendant may not set his own standard of conduct)