People v. Peau
187 Cal.Rptr.3d 237
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Michael Peau, longtime friend of the Vasquez family, shot and killed Roberto Guzman outside the family home after prior confrontations about Peau allegedly selling a stolen car to Gerardo Vasquez.
- Witnesses placed Peau at the scene in his distinctive blue Honda; one witness saw Peau stand over Guzman and fire; Guzman was shot multiple times and died; a screwdriver was found nearby.
- Peau claimed self-defense: he testified Guzman swung a screwdriver at him; he admitted to firing and to asking his girlfriend to falsely report his car stolen after the shooting.
- Police recovered a handgun with the serial number removed; ballistics matched casings at the scene; Peau was convicted of first degree murder and found to have personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive 25-to-life terms (total 50 years to life).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to sua sponte instruct on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter | Any omission harmless because jury rejected provocation by convicting of first degree murder | Court should have instructed on heat-of-passion; omission prejudicial | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because first-degree verdict necessarily rejected heat-of-passion |
| Trial court conditioning questioning about victim’s gang affiliation on defendant testifying about his knowledge | Foundation requirement was a legitimate evidentiary ruling; defendant forfeited constitutional objection | Ruling forced defendant to choose between silence and presenting defense (Fifth Amendment) | Claim forfeited for failure to raise constitutional objection below; no preserved evidentiary challenge argued |
| Prosecutor’s closing calling imperfect self-defense a “loophole” | Statements were improper but curable by admonition and harmless given instructions and argument context | Mischaracterization lowered likelihood jury would apply imperfect self-defense; violated due process | Remarks improper but forfeited (no timely objection) and harmless; no reasonable likelihood of prejudicial effect |
| Standard of prejudice for omitted jury instruction | (defendant argued federal Chapman standard should apply) | (AG argued state Watson standard applies) | Court did not decide standard; found harmless under the stricter Chapman standard |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (2013) (heat-of-passion reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter when defendant acted without reflection in response to adequate provocation)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (1998) (trial court must instruct on all lesser necessarily included offenses supported by the evidence)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (1991) (finding of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder is inconsistent with heat-of-passion)
- People v. Berry, 18 Cal.3d 509 (1976) (refusal to find omission of heat-of-passion instruction harmless where jury not clearly directed to consider provocation)
- Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) (statute requiring defendant to testify before other defense testimony impermissibly burdens right to remain silent)
- People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 147 (2007) (forfeiture of constitutional claim where defendant failed to object below to foundational ruling; due-process challenge to foundational rulings considered)
- People v. Cunningham, 25 Cal.4th 926 (2001) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct: remarks must have a reasonable likelihood of being construed in an objectionable fashion to violate state law; federal standard requires denial of due process)
- People v. Najera, 138 Cal.App.4th 212 (2006) (prosecutor’s mischaracterization of a homicide doctrine can be misconduct, but claim may be forfeited if not objected to and curable by the court)