People v. Zinda, 233 Cal. App. 4th 871

Zinda killed Valdez with an axe after Valdez’s group burglarized Zinda’s house and Valdez’s car became stuck in a ditch near Zinda’s residence.
Zinda confronted Valdez with an axe, believing Valdez was involved in the burglary, and pursued him into a field where Valdez attempted to flee.
Valdez was killed after multiple axe blows; there was no evidence of a lawful arrest attempt or probable cause to arrest Valdez for burglary.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder with a personal-use-of-a-deadly-weapon enhancement and received an indeterminate term of 15 years to life plus a one-year determinate term.
On appeal, Zinda argued (1) trial court error in failing to sua sponte instruct on justifiable homicide in making an arrest and mistake of fact, (2) erroneous heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter instructions, and (3) improper exclusion of gang-related evidence and related photographs.
The appellate court affirmed, holding no sua sponte duty to give the challenged instructions and that the voluntary manslaughter instructions were not required, and also approving the exclusion of the gang-related evidence as probative value did not outweigh prejudicial impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on justifiable homicide in making an arrest	People argues the facts support a justifiable-homicide-in-arrest instruction	Zinda contends the instruction was required by substantial evidence and consistent with his defense	No; no substantial evidence supported arrest-for-burglary theory; no sua sponte duty.
Whether the court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on mistake of fact	People asserts mistake-of-fact defense could negate liability	Zinda claims mistake of fact supports innocence of the act	No; mistake of fact not a true affirmative defense and evidence did not warrant instruction.
Whether the court erred in giving or denying voluntary manslaughter instructions	People argues heat-of-passion instruction was proper given provocation	Zinda contends he was entitled to manslaughter instructions	Not entitled; provocation did not reasonably establish heat of passion under the circumstances.
Whether exclusion of gang-evidence and related photographs was proper	People contends gang evidence/photo could be probative	Zinda argues the evidence could support his theory	Exclusion proper; gang-evidence and photos had little probative value and risked undue prejudice.

People v. Abilez, 41 Cal.4th 472 (Cal. 2007) (sua sponte duty to instruct on defenses when supported by substantial evidence)
People v. Piorkowski, 41 Cal.App.3d 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (‘any felony’ and ‘necessarily committed’ limitations for justifiable homicide in arrest)
People v. Quesada, 113 Cal.App.3d 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (burglary not per se justification for deadly force in arrest)
People v. Martin, 168 Cal.App.3d 1111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (ambiguity of ‘any felony’ interpretation; distinction for apprehension after escape)
People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 2013) (heat-of-passion doctrine, malice requirement)
People v. Steele, 27 Cal.4th 1230 (Cal. 2002) (provocation standard for heat of passion instructions)
People v. Manriquez, 37 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 2005) (provocation must be caused by the victim or believed to be by the victim; objective standard)
People v. Najera, 138 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (pinpoint instruction on provocation; caution against misstatement of law)
People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 2010) (limits on voluntary manslaughter instructions when provocation lacks reasonable basis)
In re Wing Y., 67 Cal.App.3d 69 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (gang-evidence relevance and proper limits)