iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Self-defense Assault			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
   Appeals-New Arguments in Reply Brief May be Disregarded
(People v. Jefferson)
 

Criminal Law-Self-defense Assault Must Actually and Reasonably Believe Need
(People v. Jefferson)

B.   Analysis

For an assault to be in self-defense, the defendant must actually and reasonably believe in the need to defend.  “Although the belief in the need to defend must be objectively reasonable, a jury must consider what ‘would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge . . . .’  (CALJIC No. 5.50.)  It judges reasonableness ‘from the point of view of a reasonable person in the position of defendant . . . .’  (People v. McGee (1947) 31 Cal.2d 229, 238 [italics added].)  To do this, it must consider all the ‘“‘facts and circumstances . . . in determining whether the defendant acted in a manner in which a reasonable man would act in protecting his own life or bodily safety.’”’  (People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 528, italics in original.)  As we stated long ago, ‘. . . a defendant is entitled to have a jury take into consideration all the elements in the case which might be expected to operate on his mind . . . .  (People v. Smith (1907) 151 Cal. 619, 628.)  [¶]  . . .  [¶] 

“. . . Although the ultimate test of reasonableness is objective, in determining whether a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have believed in the need to defend, the jury must consider all of the relevant circumstances in which defendant found [himself].”  (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082-1083.)

For purposes of applying this test, defendant argues a reasonable person in this instance is one who is confined in a prison’s psychiatric services unit.  Evidence of the conditions of confinement, he continues, including his mental illness and the staff’s training, should be considered by the jury “to determine whether the defendant had reasonable grounds for an honest belief that he was in imminent danger.”  He asserts the trial court’s actions in granting the prosecution’s in limine motion, denying his request for a jury instruction, and responding to the jury’s question in the manner it did violated this test and unconstitutionally prevented him from raising his defense of self-defense.

Defendant misstates the objective “reasonable person” test.  The issue is not whether defendant, or a person like him, had reasonable grounds for believing he was in danger.  The issue is whether a “reasonable person” in defendant’s situation, seeing and knowing the same facts, would be justified in believing he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. 

By definition, a reasonable person is not one who hears voices due to severe mental illness.  In blunt fashion, our Supreme Court long ago defined a reasonable person as a “normal person.”  (Katz v. Helbing (1928) 205 Cal. 629, 638.)  The reasonable person is an abstract individual of ordinary mental and physical capacity who is as prudent and careful as any situation would require him to be.  (See, e.g., Davidson Steamship Co. v. United States (1907) 205 U.S. 187, 193 [51 L.Ed. 764, 767] [“there is an obligation on all persons to take the care which, under ordinary circumstances of the case, a reasonable and prudent man would take”]; Fouch v. Werner (1929) 99 Cal.App. 557, 565 [standard of care is “the standard of an ordinarily prudent man under normal circumstances”].)

The common law does not take account of a person’s mental capacity when determining whether he has acted as the reasonable person would have acted.  The law holds “the mentally deranged or insane defendant accountable for his negligence as if the person were a normal, prudent person.”  (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 32, p. 177.)

California criminal law reflects this principle by prohibiting the defendant from proving insanity in the same trial where guilt is established.  The defendant is presumed sane in the guilt trial.  He raises the defense of insanity by separate plea, and the issue is decided in a separate trial.  (§ 1026.)  Evidence of defendant’s mental condition is not admissible to prove the absence of general intent.  (People v. Gutierrez (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1082.) 

The principle is similarly continued in the law of self-defense.  In People v. Humphrey, supra, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (Humphrey), the Supreme Court determined expert testimony concerning battered women’s syndrome was relevant and admissible under Evidence Code section 1107 to establish the objective reasonableness of defendant’s belief in the necessity to kill the victim.  (Id. at pp. 1076-1077.)  Defendant erroneously claims Humphrey required the admission here of his mental condition as part of establishing the reasonable person standard.  Nowhere did the Humphrey court state the expert evidence could be used to redefine the “reasonable person” standard as one who suffered from battered women’s syndrome or, as defendant argues here, one who suffered from hearing voices. 

To the contrary, the Supreme Court stated:  “[W]e are not changing the standard from objective to subjective, or replacing the reasonable ‘person’ standard with a reasonable ‘battered woman’ standard.  Our decision would not, in another context, compel adoption of a ‘“reasonable gang member” standard.’  Evidence Code section 1107 states ‘a rule of evidence only’ and makes ‘no substantive change.’  (Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (d).)  The jury must consider defendant’s situation and knowledge, which makes the evidence relevant, but the ultimate question is whether a reasonable person, not a reasonable battered woman, would believe in the need to kill to prevent imminent harm.  Moreover, it is the jury, not the expert, that determines whether defendant’s belief and, ultimately, her actions, were objectively reasonable.”  (Humphrey, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1087, italics in original.)

Here, the guilt phase jury knew defendant was an inmate at New Folsom Prison’s psychiatric services unit; he was incarcerated for committing a homicide and a number of robberies; he was being involuntarily medicated; he heard “powerful” female voices every day telling him the staff is poisoning his food and things about his family; before each incident, the voices told him the correctional officers were going to hurt him; and he believed he had no choice but to follow the voices and do what he did.  The jury also knew the facts of the incidents, and knew it had no evidence of any attempt by, or intent of the officers to harm defendant.

The jury thus had before it all of the relevant facts and circumstances in which defendant found himself.  The trial court correctly denied defense counsel’s efforts to define the reasonable person as a mentally ill person hearing voices.  Under the rule of Humphrey, the jury was to determine whether a person of ordinary and normal mental and physical capacity would have believed he was in imminent danger of bodily injury under the known circumstances.  The jury was so instructed, and defendant was not denied the opportunity to present his defense in the manner allowed by law.

People v. Jefferson 6/15/04 CA3

Jun 15 2004

C041274 [PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Jefferson 6/15/04 CA3

California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US | California Appeals
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | California Writs
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com       
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos | United States History | Spanish