People v. Breverman

19 Cal.4th 142 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On the evening of December 17, 1993, Yoon Ju and Hyun (Bill) Kim were walking in on their way to play pool. As they passed Ds residence words were exchanged with a larger group of young people who were drinking beer in the garage and driveway area. A fight ensued. Ju and Kim were kicked and beaten, The two sustained cuts and bruises before they were allowed to leave. The next night, Kim and six to ten friends returned. Kim had a fishing knife, and the group was armed with other weapons, including a baseball bat and parts of a 'Club' automobile security device. Kim slashed a tire of a BMW automobile parked in D's driveway and walked back to his waiting friends. D came out of the house and checked the BMW. Kim's friends yelled to D to bring out his friends for an even fight. D went back inside. The group then drove away and parked up the street on the other side of D's house, and began walking toward D's residence. Once the main group arrived in front of D's house, four or five individuals came up to the BMW and began hitting the car with the bat, the Club pieces, and a broken broomstick. The group may have been shouting epithets. The BMW's alarm went off, and shots came from the front door of Ds residence. D said he saw at least 12 people. The shots continued as the group began to run away. During the second volley, Kim looked back and saw D firing from his driveway near the public sidewalk. When the gunfire stopped, Suryaatmadja was lying in the street, unconscious and bleeding from the head. He died from a bullet that entered the right rear of the victim's head and exited above his right eye. D was charged with murder. The jury received instructions on justifiable homicide ('reasonable' self-defense) and on the lesser 'necessarily included' offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The voluntary manslaughter instructions were premised entirely on the theory of 'unreasonable' self-defense. D was convicted and appealed. D claimed the trial court erred by failing to instruct, sua sponte, on a 'heat of passion' theory of voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the conviction. P appealed.