Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

SERIES 500 HOMICIDE

F 560 NOTES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 560 Note 1 Homicide: Provocative Act by Defendant—CALCRIM Cross References And Research Notes
F 560 Note 2 Provocative Act Murder: Shooting Of Gang Member As “Provocative Act”
F 560 Note 3 Provocative Act Murder: Conviction Based On Provocative Act Of Deceased Accomplice Who Is Not The Alleged Murder Victim
F 560 Note 4 Provocative Act Of Murder: Causation Requirement—Actual Killer Must Have Been Responding To The Provocative Act
F 560 Note 5 Provocative Act Of Murder: Applicability Of Concurrent Causation And Transferred Intent
F 560 Note 6 Provocative Act Doctrine: No Juror Unanimity As To Provocative Act
F 560 Note 7 Provocative Act Murder: Pointing A Gun Is Not A Provocative Act
F 560 Note 8 Liability For Death Of An Accomplice: Provocative Act Not Required For Attempted Murder
F 560 Note 9 Provocative Act Murder: Defendant Must Personally Form Required Mental State For Murder

Return to Series 500 Table of Contents.


F 560 Note 1 Homicide: Provocative Act by Defendant—CALCRIM Cross References And Research Notes

CALCRIM Cross-References:

CALCRIM 561 [Homicide: Provocative Act By Accomplice]

Research Notes:

See CLARAWEB Forum, Homicide—Series 500-700.


F 560 Note 2 Provocative Act Murder: Shooting Of Gang Member As “Provocative Act“

See People v. Concha (2009) 47 C4th 653 [“Our prior decisions make clear that, where the defendant perpetrates an inherently dangerous felony, the victim’s self-defensive killing is a natural and probable response”]; but see People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 C4th 860 [defendant’s shooting of a gang member was not the proximate cause of a subsequent gang shooting].)

See also FORECITE F 560 n4.

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n2.


F 560 Note 3 Provocative Act Murder: Conviction Based On Provocative Act Of Deceased Accomplice Who Is Not The Alleged Murder Victim

An accomplice may not be convicted of murder based on the death of the other accomplice who caused his own death by committing a provocative act. (See People v. Antick (1975) 15 C3d 79, 91; see also People v. Garcia (1999) 69 CA4th 1324, 1331.) However, when the deceased accomplice also killed another human being, the surviving accomplice may be liable for the murder of the other person. (69 CA4th at 1331.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n3.


F 560 Note 4 Provocative Act Of Murder: Causation Requirement—Actual Killer Must Have Been Responding To The Provocative Act

Where the killing was itself felonious, intentional, perpetrated with malice aforethought, and directed at a victim who was not involved in the original altercation, there is insufficient proximate causation for application of the provocative act doctrine. (See People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 C4th 860.) Even if the murder occurred a very short time after the defendant committed the provocative act (shooting at a rival gang member) and there was expert testimony that the killing was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s shooting at a rival gang member, that is not enough to establish the causation requirement for provocative act murder. (Ibid.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n4.


F 560 Note 5 Provocative Act Of Murder: Applicability Of Concurrent Causation And Transferred Intent

As Justice Kennard explained in her concurring opinion in Sanchez, (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 C4th 834) the underlying distinction between Cervantes (People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 C4th 860) and Sanchez is that the former was a revenge killing while the latter was mutual combat. In Sanchez the defendant and the rival gang member were firing at each other when a bullet from one of their guns killed the bystander. Hence, the defendant was guilty under the provocative act doctrine in light of the principles of concurrent causation and transferred intent. In Cervantes the defendant fired at a rival gang member after which other members of the rival gang shot and killed a third party in revenge. Because the person at whom the defendant had fired in Cervantes did not participate in the killing of the third party and because the third party was not killed during an exchange of shots at a single time and place, proximate and legal causation were not established. (Sanchez, 26 C4th at 857, Kennard, J., concurring.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n5.


F 560 Note 6 Provocative Act Doctrine: No Juror Unanimity As To Provocative Act

See People v. Briscoe (2001) 92 CA4th 568.

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n6.


F 560 Note 7 Provocative Act Murder: Pointing A Gun Is Not A Provocative Act

(See People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 C4th 1187, 1203 [defendant’s testimony that the victim pointed a gun at him and demanded the cocaine is not sufficient to establish that the victim instigated a gun battle within the meaning of the provocative act murder doctrine].)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n7.


F 560 Note 8 Liability For Death Of An Accomplice: Provocative Act Not Required For Attempted Murder

Cases involving the death of an accomplice resulting from robberies have continued to adhere to the requirement that there be an independent provocative act in order for the defendant to be liable for the death of an accomplice. People v. Gallegos (1997) 54 CA4th 453, 461 held that this rule does not apply when the underlying act is itself provocative such as attempted murder.

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.12 n1.


F 560 Note 9 Provocative Act Murder: Defendant Must Personally Form Required Mental State For Murder

In People v. Concha (2009) 47 C4th 653 the defendants were charged with attempted murder (of the robbery victim) and murder (of their co-accomplice, who was killed by the robbery victim). While a defendant can be convicted of attempted murder based on the mens rea of an accomplice, murder requires that the defendant personally have the requisite mens rea. Here, while the trial court instructed properly with regard to the attempted murder count, it “inadequately instructed the jury on first degree murder,” failing “to require that the jury resolve whether each defendant acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation….”

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES