People v. Ramirez
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Victor and Armando Ramirez (brothers, La Sierra gang members) drove to confront rival Tiny Winos after repeated harassment and prior shots at Armando’s home.\
- Armando secretly carried a .38 despite a companion’s request not to bring a gun; they intended to confront (and likely fight) rival members, not necessarily to kill.\
- A group of Tiny Winos was found; a fistfight began after defendants "hit up" the group. Armando testified he saw Ruben Rivera raise an object that looked like a gun and shot and killed Rivera. No firearm was recovered on Rivera.\
- Defendants were convicted of first degree murder, gang enhancements, and a gang special-circumstance; sentenced to life without parole plus 25-to-life for firearm use.\
- At trial the court gave CALCRIM No. 3472 ("may not be contrived") and a modified CALCRIM No. 571 special instruction; prosecutor argued CALCRIM No. 3472 categorically barred any self-defense (perfect or imperfect) if defendants provoked a fight to use "force."\
- On appeal the court held the instruction, as given and argued, misstated the law by foreclosing jury consideration of imperfect self-defense when a defendant provoked a nondeadly quarrel that the victim escalated to deadly force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 3472, as given, correctly barred self-defense where defendant provoked a fight intending to use force | AG/prosecutor: instruction valid; contriving to use force forfeits any self-defense | Defendants: instruction overbroad — contriving to provoke only nondeadly force does not forfeit right to defend against an opponent’s sudden deadly escalation | Reversed: instruction misstated law by foreclosing imperfect self-defense when defendant provoked nondeadly fight and victim unlawfully escalated to deadly force |
| Whether prosecutor’s argument compounded instructional error and misled jury | Prosecutor: relied on CALCRIM No. 3472 to argue categorical bar | Defendants: prosecutor repeatedly told jury it "didn't matter" whether victim was armed, compounding error | Court: prosecutor’s argument amplified the misstatement and reinforced jury error |
| Whether failure to request clarifying instruction or counsel’s request for 3472 forfeited the claim | AG: any ambiguity should have been resolved by defense request; Victor even requested 3472 | Defendants: trial court has sua sponte duty to accurately instruct; Victor’s request was inadvertent/ineffective assistance | Court: no forfeiture — trial court had duty to instruct correctly; Victor’s request did not waive claim because counsel was ineffective in requesting an instruction that eliminated defense |
| Whether instructional error was harmless given gang findings | AG: gang special-circumstance and enhancement show jury rejected self-defense | Defendants: jury could not fairly reject self-defense where instructions foreclosed consideration | Court: not harmless — jury was misled into rejecting imperfect self-defense as a matter of law rather than fact |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conkling, 111 Cal. 616 (Cal. 1896) (longstanding principle that one who provokes a quarrel does not automatically forfeit right to life or all self-defense rights)\
- People v. Enraca, 53 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2012) (approved a predecessor instruction where defendant provoked deadly conduct; contrived deadly assault forecloses self-defense)\
- People v. Vasquez, 136 Cal.App.4th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (imperfect self-defense may be available even if defendant set in motion chain of events, where victim’s response was unlawful)\
- People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1924) (authority recognizing that contriving a deadly quarrel defeats a self-defense claim when intent was to force a deadly issue)\
- People v. Quach, 116 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (imperfect self-defense instruction required where reasonable jurors could accept defendant’s version)\
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (trial court’s duty to instruct on general principles of law applicable to the evidence)