People v. Harris

California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 1971 No. Crim. 18295Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant did not act in self-defense and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter over a claim of self-defense.
Whether the use of a prior felony conviction to impeach a defendant violates due process.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to provide a sua sponte instruction regarding the acquittal of a defendant when a homicide appears justifiable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury was not required to accept defendant’s version of the killing.”

“The question of whether, there was such an excess is ordinarily one of fact for the jury to determiné.”

“The trial court cannot be required to anticipate every possible theory that may fit the facts of the case before it and instruct the jury accordingly.”

[536]

Opinion

LILLIE, J.

Charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187), defendant was convicted in a jury trial of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. 1), a lesser and necessarily included offense; the court found to be true a prior felony conviction. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

On the date of the homicide (July 24, 1969), defendant was employed as a clerk in a Los Angeles liquor store located at 47th and Western Avenue. In the early evening of the above date, Robert Ricks (the victim), aged about 18 years, and three male friends purchased some potato chips and “pop” from defendant; they were there for several minutes and left without any untoward incident, although there was testimony that the victim had been drinking—he had earlier consumed a couple of beers. After their departure, defendant subsequently told another customer that some “kids” had come in, they had been “messing” with him, he did not know whether they were armed, and he was going to protect himself. Thirty minutes later the victim returned with one of his friends; a prosecution witness (Billy Earl Police) stated he appeared to be drunk.

Although there were other customers waiting to be served, defendant addressed the victim and stated that he would take him first. The victim, who was standing by the stocking display, said: “No, wait on the other customers first.” Defendant then walked away from the cash register and went over to the stocking display, saying,to the victim: “It’s your [obscenity] turn. I’m waiting on you now.” The victim replied, “What’s the matter, brother?” to which defendant said, “Now I’m sick and tired of this [obscenity], It is your God-damn turn now.” The above exchange went on for about five minutes; meantime, other customers were telling defendant, “You can wait on me now” or “Wait on me.” Finally, defendant left the victim, went back to the other customers and served them, but before doing so, he (defendant) picked up a gun and laid it on the counter behind the cash register.

When defendant had waited on all the customers, the victim walked down to the cash register; he acted as though he wanted defendant to wait on him next. After putting his right hand on the counter, he said to defendant: “Brother, what’s the matter?” The latter kept repeating: “Get your [obscenity] ass out of here before I do something that I don’t want to do. Get your [obscenity] out of here.” The two were then about three feet apart; according to one witness (Billy Police) there was no bulge in the victim’s left pocket and he made no type of threatening gesture. Defendant then grabbed his gun; without saying anything or threatening with the gun, he fired once in a very quick motion. After the shot, the

People v. Harris

AI Brief

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief