People v. Matthews

California Court of Appeal Jul 15, 1980 No. Crim. 11256Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no error in the cross-examination regarding post-arrest silence or the jury instructions, but remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with People v. Harvey.

Issues

Whether the prosecution's cross-examination of the defendant regarding his post-arrest silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the 'unreasonable belief' principle regarding self-defense.
Whether the defendant's sentence must be modified in light of People v. Harvey.

Disposition. Affirmed and remanded for resentencing.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that an honest but unreasonable belief it was necessary to defend oneself from imminent peril to life negates malice aforethought”

“The judgment of conviction is affirmed, with remand only for re-sentencing in harmony with Harvey, Benton and Roberson.”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

a bloody barroom brawl in Brawley, Steven Matthews shot and killed a man and injured three others. At the end of a month-long jury trial he was convicted of second degree murder, having used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1), assault intending to murder, with the gun use as above, plus inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7); and two attempted murders, with gun use as above.

Matthews was enroute from San Bernardino to San Diego. Jack Peniska and his girlfriend Becky Sue King were with him. They stopped in Brawley for Peniska to retrieve his belongings, decided to spend the

[795]

night there, went to a bar and had some beer. While dancing with King, Peniska offended the patrons by letting down his pants, exposing his bottom. Although he pulled them up, the damage was done. The atmosphere suggested they would be welcomed elsewhere and they left. Others followed them out but when the three appeared to be leaving in a car, the pained patrons returned to the bar. The car stopped in the parking lot. Matthews and Peniska talked with some people and decided to return to the bar to see if anyone wanted trouble. Matthews took a pistol with him. They confronted the patrons, started a fight and Matthews, when knocked down, pulled out the gun and sprayed shots around, killing one and wounding others. At pistol point Matthews ordered the release of Peniska and the two of them fled to the waiting King in the car and drove off. They returned to San Bernardino where Matthews was arrested three days later.

Matthews claims the People reversibly erred in improperly questioning him about his postarrest silence to the police, violating his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as explained to him when he was

Mirandized (Doyle

Ohio

(1976) 426 U.S. 610, 620 [49 L.Ed.2d 91, 99, 96 S.Ct. 2240];

United States

Hale

People v. Matthews

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief