SERIES 500 HOMICIDE
F 510 NOTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 510 Note 1 Instruction On Both Accident And Self-Defense
F 510 Note 2 Self-Defense Available When Defendant Only Threatens To Use Force
Return to Series 500 Table of Contents.
F 510 Note 1 Instruction On Both Accident And Self-Defense
“The bulk of the authority is that a defendant’s assertion of accident may be disregarded by the jury in an appropriate case, and will not foreclose jury instruction on self-defense when there exists substantial evidence that the shooting was intentional (and met the other requirements of self-defense). (People v. Barton (1995) 12 C4th 186, 202–203 [finding sufficient evidence of intentional shooting in imperfect self-defense despite the defendant’s assertion that the shooting was accidental]; People v. Elize (1999) 71 CA4th 605, 610 [“A jury … could disbelieve defendant’s testimony that the firing was accidental, and decide instead that he had fired intentionally, either actually attempting to hit one of the [assailants] or to shock them into breaking off their attack.”]; People v. Mayweather (1968) 259 CA2d 752, 756 [jury could have found a volitional shooting in self-defense despite defendant’s assertion of accident].)” (People v. Villanueva (2008)169 CA4th 41, 51-52.)
The notes following CC 510, the jury instruction for excusable homicide committed by accident, there is a note stating that in People v. Curtis (1994) 30 CA4th 1337 “the court held that the claim that a killing was accidental bars the defendant from relying on traditional self-defense … as a defense … .” (The note goes on to disagree with this purported holding in light of the more recent authority of People v. Elize, supra, 71 CA4th 605.) However, People v. Villanueva, supra,169 CA4th at 52 disagreed with the CALCRIM interpretation of Curtis: “In that case, the court recognized the legal proposition that while a defendant’s assertion of accident is inconsistent with imperfect self-defense, the jury could reject the defendant’s testimony and find an intentional shooting in imperfect self-defense. The court simply found no evidence of an intentional shooting in imperfect self-defense in that case. (People v. Curtis, supra, 30 CA4th at pp. 1355-1356.)”
Thus, when appropriate the judge should instruct on accident and both perfect and imperfect self-defense. (People v. Villanueva, supra,169 CA4th at 52-53.)
F 510 Note 2 Self-Defense Available When Defendant Only Threatens To Use Force
See FORECITE F 505.6 Inst 5.
