People v. Speight
174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 454
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Speight was convicted by a Riverside County jury of two counts of premeditated, willful, and deliberate attempted murder and related firearm enhancements; one count toward Bryant was acquitted.
- The victims were Tonesha S. and Richard S. (and Bryant as an attempted murder target); Tonesha survived with long-term injuries.
- The incidents stemmed from a confrontation at Speight’s residence in August 2010 following threats, vandalism, and an alleged assault on Speight’s family.
- The information charged Speight with three counts of attempted murder, with additional allegations including discharging a firearm and age at the time of the offense.
- The trial included testimony from the victims and other witnesses, Speight’s own account, and defense rebuttal, along with disputed instructions about heat of passion and voluntary manslaughter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial misstatement and court error on heat of passion affected verdict | Speight argues misstatement and omission lowered burden of proof | State argues error harmless and instructions adequate | Instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether failure to give CALJIC 8.50 on heat of passion was prejudicial | Speight claims absence of mandatory instruction prejudiced him | State argues implied proof of lack of heat of passion was satisfied by other instructions | No prejudice to Speight; error harmless under Chapman standards |
| Whether sentence for juvenile nonhomicide offender violates cruel and unusual punishment and defense counsel’s performance | Speight asserts de facto life sentence and ineffective assistance | State argues Caballero not controlling; sentence permissible | Defense counsel deficient; remand for new sentencing hearing; potential de facto life sentence; appellate remand warranted |
| Whether sentencing forfeiture objections bar review of Eighth Amendment claims | Failure to object to sentence forfeits challenge | Forfeiture applies but remand allowed for review of mitigation | Forfeiture acknowledged; nevertheless remanded for new sentencing considering Caballero factors |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Houston, 54 Cal.4th 1186 (Cal. 2012) (malice and heat of passion standards in attempted murder)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Cal. 2009) (definition of attempted voluntary manslaughter)
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 2013) (relationship between attempted murder and heat of passion)
- People v. Rios, 23 Cal.4th 450 (Cal. 2000) (heat of passion as negating malice in murder, guide for lesser included offenses)
- People v. Gutierrez, 112 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. App. 2003) (provocation and heat of passion as they relate to voluntary manslaughter)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1991) (prejudice analysis when special instruction is incorrect but covered by other instructions)
- Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012) (juvenile sentencing for nonhomicide offenses; cruel and unusual punishment; mitigating factors)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life-without-parole considerations; Eighth Amendment)