People v. Wright
242 Cal. App. 4th 1461
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jennell Wright drove to Le’Mar Green’s apartment complex, waited for him, fired into his car, then shot him three times; Green died and a speed loader and live rounds were found nearby. Wright was arrested at a motel soon after with a .38 revolver and ammunition; she had ingested pills and antifreeze and later made statements that she intended to scare Green and had considered suicide.
- First jury convicted Wright of shooting into an occupied vehicle but deadlocked on the murder count; at retrial the court declined defense requests to instruct on self-defense, imperfect self-defense, provocation/heat-of-passion manslaughter, and provocation reducing first-degree to second-degree murder.
- At retrial the jury convicted Wright of first-degree murder, found the lying-in-wait special circumstance true, and found true firearm enhancements; Wright was sentenced to life without parole plus additional terms.
- On appeal Wright argued instructional error (self-defense, imperfect self-defense, provocation/heat-of-passion, and provocation reducing degree), insufficiency of lying-in-wait, exclusion of defense evidence, and juror Facebook misconduct; the court focused on the instructional and lying-in-wait issues.
- The trial court refused provocation/heat-of-passion instructions largely because it viewed the victim’s predictable resistance as not legally adequate provocation and because of perceived preclusive effect from the earlier conviction; the appellate majority found that refusal erroneous but ultimately harmless given the lying-in-wait finding.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Wright’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in refusing self-defense and imperfect self-defense instructions | Prior conviction on shooting-into-vehicle and facts showed Wright was initial aggressor; self-defense not available | Wright argued evidence (history with Green, her fear, intoxication and psychiatric condition) warranted instructions | Court concluded the court erred in some instructional rulings but treated many claims as nonprejudicial; key provocation error discussed at length and held harmless due to lying-in-wait finding |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing provocation/heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction | Victim’s post-shot resistance was predictable and not legally adequate provocation; provocation must come from victim and not be merely defendant’s personal circumstances | Wright argued long course of provocatory conduct (custody disputes, threats, child returned in diaper) supported a theory that her reason was obscured and jury should consider manslaughter | Appellate majority: refusal to give provocation/heat-of-passion instruction was error because sufficient evidence of a provocatory course existed; error was harmless due to lying-in-wait finding |
| Whether provocation could reduce first-degree murder to second-degree (instruction CALCRIM 522) | Court limited provocation as inapplicable because of initial aggression and victim’s predictable conduct | Wright argued provocation could undermine premeditation/deliberation and thus reduce degree to second-degree murder | Court held refusal to instruct on provocation’s effect on degree was error but nonprejudicial because lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding established premeditation/deliberation beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether lying-in-wait special-circumstance was supported and rendered instructional errors harmless | Lying-in-wait instructions were given; jury found the special circumstance true, supporting first-degree murder | Wright challenged sufficiency of lying-in-wait finding and argued instructional errors affected verdict | Appellate court affirmed: lying-in-wait finding supported first-degree murder and made provocation instruction error harmless; overall judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (2013) (clarifies provocation focuses on emotion-reasonableness — whether defendant’s emotional outrage was reasonable)
- People v. Borchers, 50 Cal.2d 321 (1958) (course-of-provocation can support heat-of-passion manslaughter)
- People v. Bridgehouse, 47 Cal.2d 406 (1956) (longstanding provocatory conduct may support manslaughter reduction)
- People v. Berry, 18 Cal.3d 509 (1976) (provocation over time can negate malice where passion results)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (1991) (trial court should instruct that provocation may develop over considerable time)
- People v. Rich, 45 Cal.3d 1036 (1988) (victim’s predictable resistance to defendant’s felonious conduct typically insufficient provocation)
- People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264 (1980) (predictable resistance by a victim during a crime is not adequate provocation)
- People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal.3d 307 (1982) (provocation may negate premeditation if defendant formed intent in direct response and acted immediately)
- People v. Valentine, 28 Cal.2d 121 (1946) (provocation can negate malice or premeditation depending on timing and effect)
- People v. Cruz, 44 Cal.4th 636 (2008) (lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding can render failure to instruct on provocation harmless)