People v. Lokey CA3

Filed 12/23/24 P. v. Lokey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098388

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE020161)

v.

JERRY GENE LOKEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Jerry Gene Lokey of second degree murder. Defendant contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument by inappropriately presenting an example of voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. Because defendant fails to show a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied the complained-of example in an improper or erroneous manner, we affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was living in a mobile home (also referred to as a trailer) with his wife, mother, sister, and sister’s boyfriend (victim). Defendant and victim did not have a good relationship. On December 19, 2020, defendant left dirty dishes in the sink after victim had just washed the dishes. Enraged, victim put the dirty dishes in defendant’s bed and poured syrup and batter on top. When defendant returned home, he and victim got into an argument over the dishes. The next evening, they exchanged words again. Victim later went outside and started kicking holes in the trailer. While victim was outside, defendant called a friend and asked him to come over. When friend arrived, defendant appeared to be drunk and angry. Defendant went outside looking for victim and friend followed. Upon seeing defendant and friend, victim took off his hat, threw it to the ground, threw the mug that he had in his hands, and asked, “You [motherfuckers] gonna jump me?” Victim ran at defendant, but defendant backed out of the way, so victim hit friend in the shoulder. Victim and friend briefly got into a fist fight before victim “lunged” at defendant again. Defendant pulled out a “chef’s knife” and stabbed victim in the chest. Victim later died at the scene. Defendant was charged with murder (§187, subd. (a)). The court’s instructions to the jury included self-defense, first degree murder, second degree murder, provocation, voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion, and voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. For the heat of passion instruction, the court read CALCRIM No. 570. In closing arguments, the prosecutor argued this was first degree murder, “not a sudden quarrel or self-defense.” He described heat of passion as a situation in which “ ‘the [d]efendant was provoked. As a result of the provocation, he acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, that obscured his reasoning or judgment and that