People v. Silliman CA3

Filed 5/26/15 P. v. Silliman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072774

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF1212)

WILLIAM VINCENT SILLIMAN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant William Vincent Silliman, Jr., of second degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 20 years to life. Defendant now contends (1) the trial court should have instructed the jury on sudden quarrel/heat of passion, and (2) the trial court’s instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine was inadequate.

1

Finding no instructional error, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Marcus Hume met a young woman named R.M. about a week after he was released from prison. R.M.’s mother told Hume that a man (the murder victim) had a sex tape of R.M. Hume, who later described the murder victim as a child molester, admitted that he was associated with a prison gang committed to victimizing child molesters in prison. Hume tried to persuade the murder victim to hand over the sex tape, but he failed and a fight ensued. Hume had known defendant for about a year and sometimes slept in the spare room in defendant’s apartment. Defendant, who was in the Air Force, kept several weapons in the apartment. Defendant admitted to police that he owned the murder weapon, a shotgun, and had helped Hume saw it off. Defendant also told police he knew Hume intended to use the sawed-off shotgun to kill a man. Hume denied saying he wanted to kill the victim, insisting he only wanted to beat him up. Hume’s ultimate objective was to retrieve the sex tape. On the day of the murder, R.M.’s sister, brother and two other young men gathered at defendant’s apartment. Hume asked R.M.’s brother to “have his back” in a fight. The two other young men agreed to serve as lookouts. Hume told everyone he intended to “fuck up” the victim. Defendant drove his white truck to the scene of the crime with Hume in the passenger seat and R.M.’s siblings in the back; the lookouts walked. Defendant saw the sawed-off shotgun in Hume’s jacket. Defendant was armed with a knife. One of the lookouts testified that Hume said he just wanted to talk to the victim but would use the shotgun if the victim pulled out a gun. The lookout also said Hume intended to beat the victim “a little bit.”