People v. Perkins CA1/3
A144225
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- In 2009 Perkins shot and killed Daniel Harrington while both were in Harrington’s parked car during an alleged drug transaction; DNA from a beer can in the car matched Perkins.
- Perkins told his ex-girlfriend Arteaga he had placed his gun at the victim’s side and fired when the victim reached under the seat, calling it an accident.
- Jury acquitted on first-degree murder and section 246 firing-at-vehicle counts but convicted Perkins of second-degree murder and grossly negligent discharge; true finding he personally used/discharged a firearm causing death.
- Trial court also convicted Perkins as a felon in possession; he received an aggregate sentence of 41 years to life and appealed.
- On appeal Perkins challenged: (1) a supplemental instruction on an aggressor’s inability to claim self-defense; (2) instruction on contrived self-defense; (3) instruction on involuntary manslaughter (tied to Penal Code §417.3); and (4) cumulative instructional error.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Perkins’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental instruction that an aggressor may not invoke self-defense | Instruction accurately stated law (In re Christian S. footnote) and was supported by evidence that Perkins placed a gun at victim’s side | Instruction was ambiguous/misleading because an initial aggressor can still claim self-defense if he reasonably (or actually but unreasonably) believed the victim was aggressor | Affirmed — instruction lawful, not reasonably likely to mislead when read with the full charge and record; Arteaga’s testimony supported finding Perkins was initial aggressor |
| Instruction on contrived self-defense (provoking fight to create excuse) | Properly given; Arteaga’s testimony that Perkins placed gun to victim’s side supports contrivance theory | No evidentiary support; jury could misread instruction to bar self-defense for merely entering risky situation | Affirmed — instruction supported by substantial evidence and legally correct |
| Involuntary manslaughter instruction tied to felony brandishing (§417.3) as the predicate unlawful act | Selection of §417.3 as predicate was agreed in trial and harmless; jury’s findings (personal discharge and intent) negate accidental theory | Using §417.3 improperly required jury to find brandishing in moving vehicle and could not support involuntary manslaughter | Affirmed — even if choice of predicate were erroneous, no prejudice: jury verdicts and evidence show malice/intent, so an involuntary-manslaughter theory was rejected by the verdict |
| Cumulative instructional error (due process) | No prejudicial errors to cumulate; any imperfections harmless under state harmless-error review | Multiple instructional defects deprived Perkins of fair trial and constitutional protections | Affirmed — no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome; defendant received due process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (Cal. 1994) (an aggressor who by wrongful conduct creates circumstances justifying the adversary’s attack cannot invoke self-defense)
- People v. Enraca, 53 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2012) (definitions of self-defense and imperfect self-defense; imminence requirement)
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 2014) (distinguishing unreasonable self-defense based on circumstances from delusional perceptions)
- People v. Timms, 151 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (definition of implied malice for murder)