223 Cal. App. 4th 1158
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- On December 23, 2008, Juan Carlos Rodarte shot Jesús Ayala from a car in an alley; Ayala suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized and comatose.
- Rodarte was charged with attempted murder (count 1) and discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 26100(c); count 2), among other counts; jury convicted on all counts and found firearm and great-bodily-injury enhancements true.
- Rodarte testified he believed Ayala posed an imminent deadly threat based on prior threats and incidents; prosecution presented witnesses describing the shooting and prior disputes.
- Trial court instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense for the attempted murder count (murder-based theory) but refused to give imperfect self-defense instructions for the vehicle-shooting charge (§ 26100(c)).
- After deliberations the jury asked whether imperfect self-defense applied to counts 2 and 3; the court told them it did not. Rodarte appealed, arguing the court erred by not instructing on imperfect self-defense for the vehicle-shooting count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on imperfect self-defense for a § 26100(c) (shooting from vehicle) charge | The People argued imperfect self-defense is inapplicable because § 26100(c) requires only general malice, not malice aforethought negated by imperfect self-defense | Rodarte argued imperfect self-defense is a lesser-included/inherent subset of self-defense and negates the malice element of § 26100(c), so the instruction was required when there was evidence supporting it | Court held no error: imperfect self-defense applies to negate malice aforethought (murder) but not to general-malice offenses like § 26100(c); no instruction required |
| Whether the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is a sua sponte lesser-included instruction whenever perfect self-defense is given | People contended no sua sponte duty exists absent substantial evidence of unreasonable/self-defense manslaughter; and that imperfect self-defense does not logically negate the general malice in § 26100(c) | Rodarte relied on precedents (Ceja/De Leon concurrences) that imperfect self-defense is a lesser included of perfect self-defense and must be instructed when perfect self-defense is supported | Court agreed with cases holding no automatic duty; imperfect self-defense is limited to negating murder malice and is not a proper instruction for § 26100(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vallejo, 214 Cal.App.4th 1033 (rejected application of imperfect self-defense to vehicle-shooting statutes)
- People v. Sekona, 27 Cal.App.4th 443 (distinguished mayhem malice from murder malice; limited imperfect self-defense)
- People v. Hayes, 120 Cal.App.4th 796 (imperfect self-defense not applicable to mayhem/general-malice crimes)
- People v. Valenzuela, 199 Cal.App.4th 1214 (no sua sponte duty to instruct on imperfect self-defense merely because perfect self-defense given)
- People v. Randle, 35 Cal.4th 987 (explains perfect vs imperfect self-defense distinction)
- In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (requires actual belief in imminent danger for self-defense doctrines)
- People v. Ceja, 28 Cal.App.4th 78 (concurring view that imperfect self-defense is a lesser-included of perfect self-defense; not broadly adopted)
- People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (definition/explanation of imperfect self-defense)