Source: http://academy.lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/people-v-soto-415-p-3d-789-ca-supreme-court-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:10:56+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAQUIN GARCIA SOTO, Defendant and Appellant.
Stephen B. Bedrick, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Molly O’Neal, Public Defender (Santa Clara), and Michael Ogul, Deputy Public Defender, for California Public Defenders Association and Santa Clara County Public Defenders as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Kevin Kiley and Amit Kurlekar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter for Senator Ray Haynes as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by Chin, J., with Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Corrigan, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ., concurring. Concurring and Dissenting opinion by Liu, J., with Thompson, J., [*] concurring.
We must decide whether section 29.4 permits evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether a defendant believed it necessary to act in self-defense. Reading the statutory language in context and in light of the apparent legislative intent in enacting it, we conclude such evidence is not admissible on this question. Accordingly, CALCRIM No. 625 correctly permits the jury to consider evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether defendant intended to kill but not on the question of whether he believed he needed to act in self-defense.
Defendant told a different version of the events. The Court of Appeal’s opinion reviewed his testimony in detail: “Defendant testified in his defense as follows. He had never seen Ramirez or Saavedra before the night of the offense. In the three- or four-day period before the offense, he had been living on the street, drinking alcohol, and using methamphetamine. His state of mind ‘wasn’t right.’ Drinking alcohol and using methamphetamine over a three- or four-day period caused him to feel tired and weak. He heard voices and saw shadows.
“On July 10, he began drinking and smoking methamphetamine early in the day, and he used methamphetamine throughout the day. He was carrying a knife that he used for field work. In the evening, he went to the Oak Avenue apartment building to seek work. He had been hired by a man outside the building a few years before. At 6:30 p.m., he went upstairs to Solano’s apartment. Defendant had never met Solano before. Defendant recalled knocking on the door, stepping into the apartment, and asking if anyone else was there. He did not intend to harm anyone; he was only looking for the man who had hired him before.
“After leaving Solano’s apartment, defendant walked over to the next door. This time, instead of knocking on the front door, he kicked it in and saw a woman and a man inside. (In his testimony, defendant could not explain why he kicked in the door.) Defendant walked into the apartment, whereupon he saw the woman go into another room and close the door. Defendant then walked ‘a little past the entryway.’ Ramirez went the other way, into the kitchen. Defendant started walking out. When defendant was at the hallway area entering the living room, he saw Ramirez approaching him with a knife. Ramirez was swinging and ‘jabbing’ the knife.
“Defendant was scared for his life. He put up his hands and tried to defend himself. Defendant pushed Ramirez away and took out his knife, but Ramirez kept coming at him while swinging and jabbing with the knife. The two moved around, fighting each other with their knives in the hallway and in the kitchen area of the apartment. At some point, defendant pushed Ramirez away and ‘took off running.’ Defendant was not sure whether he or Ramirez had been stabbed inside the apartment.
The Court of Appeal opinion also summarized the expert witness testimony defendant presented: “Dr. Amanda Gregory, a neuropsychologist, testified for defendant as an expert on methamphetamine induced psychosis. Dr. Gregory opined that defendant was suffering from a methamphetamine-induced psychotic disorder at the time of the offense. Persons suffering from this disorder experience paranoia and delusional thinking, causing them to falsely believe that others are threatening them. Furthermore, sleep deprivation caused by methamphetamine use negatively affects users’ ability to process information, form judgments, and make good decisions. Methamphetamine users may also experience hallucinations, such as hearing voices or seeing things that are not there. As a result of paranoid delusions, persons suffering from a methamphetamine-induced psychotic disorder may misperceive interactions with others, perceiving threats when there are no actual threats.
We granted both parties’ petitions for review and limited the issues to whether the trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 625 and, if so, whether the error was prejudicial.
Because express malice requires an intent to kill “unlawfully” (§ 188), defendant argues the Court of Appeal was correct when it held that section 29.4 permits evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether he actually believed in the need for self-defense, that is, whether he intended to kill unlawfully.
The primary difference between express malice and implied malice is that the former requires an intent to kill but the latter does not. (People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1115 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364, 820 P.2d 588].) And reading the reference to express malice in context, it is apparent the Legislature was particularly concerned with this “required specific intent” (§ 29.4, subd. (b)) component of express malice. (See People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 73 [192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 355 P.3d 480] [citing the noscitur a sociis canon of construction, meaning “a word literally ‘is known by its associates.’”].) By contrast, the absence of a belief that the killing was necessary for self-defense is not a “required specific intent.” Nor is it a matter unique to cases of express malice; the absence of such a belief is equally relevant in cases of implied malice, which are excluded from the reach of section 29.4.
Justice Mosk’s reasoning in Whitfield strongly supports the conclusion that section 29.4 does not permit evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether the defendant believed it was necessary to act in self-defense. Unlike the mental state of intent to kill, a belief that it is necessary to kill in self-defense does not involve the “‘intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence.’” (Whitfield, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 463 (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) Rather, it involves judgment. Intoxication can distort a person’s perception of the unfolding circumstances, and thereby impair the sound judgment that is needed when deciding to use lethal force in self-defense. Accordingly, voluntary “intoxication naturally lends itself to the crime’s commission because it impairs the sound judgment or lowers the inhibitions that might stop a sober individual” from killing a perceived assailant. (Ibid. (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) The mental state for unreasonable self-defense is precisely what Justice Mosk argued voluntary intoxication should not negate.
By prohibiting evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate implied malice, the Legislature apparently agreed with Justice Mosk that a defendant who acts with conscious disregard for life should be punished for murder regardless of whether voluntary intoxication impaired his or her judgment. Therefore, as the Court of Appeal seemed to acknowledge, section 29.4 prohibits evidence of voluntary intoxication to prove that defendant did not harbor implied malice for another reason—because he actually but unreasonably believed in the need to act in self-defense.
The question here is whether the Legislature intended a different result in cases of unreasonable self-defense when used to negate express malice. The statutory background reveals no such purpose. Justice Mosk’s reasoning applies to unreasonable self-defense when it negates express malice, too. A belief that it is necessary to kill in self-defense is still a judgment that voluntary intoxication will impair, whether used to negate implied or express malice. And the statutory text bears out this conclusion: The inclusion of both “specific intent” and “express malice” in section 29.4, subdivision (b), suggests that the statute is best understood as not allowing evidence of voluntary intoxication to establish unreasonable self-defense and negate the unlawful aspect of express malice murder. Moreover, a different conclusion would give a stronger case for unreasonable self-defense to those who act with express malice than to those who act with implied malice. A person who acted with implied malice, for example, who intended to injure seriously but not specifically to kill, could not rely on evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate malice under an unreasonable self-defense theory. But under defendant’s interpretation, a person who intended to kill could do so. That interpretation would place a person who intended to kill in a better legal position (i.e., a possible conviction of voluntary manslaughter) than one who intended to injure seriously. In light of the evidence that the Legislature did not intend to allow voluntary intoxication evidence on unreasonable self-defense, we doubt the Legislature intended differing applications of unreasonable self-defense for express and implied malice.
Similarly, Mendoza’s narrow holding does not apply here. As we have explained, the mental state of believing it is necessary to act in self-defense does not involve the “intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence.” (People v. Atkins, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 93.) It is not a required specific intent under section 29.4.
Amici curiae California Public Defenders Association and Santa Clara County Public Defender argue that the rule of lenity, “whereby courts must resolve doubts as to the meaning of a statute in a criminal defendant’s favor” (People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57 [115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 403, 38 P.3d 1]), requires this court to interpret section 29.4 in defendant’s favor. Even assuming the rule applies to a statute, like section 29.4, that only regulates the extent to which evidence of voluntary intoxication may negate a required mental state, we disagree. “[T]he rule applies only when two reasonable interpretations of a penal statute stand in relative equipoise. ‘[A]lthough true ambiguities are resolved in a defendant’s favor, an appellate court should not strain to interpret a penal statute in defendant’s favor if it can fairly discern a contrary legislative intent.’” (People ex rel. Green v. Grewal (2015) 61 Cal.4th 544, 565 [189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686, 352 P.3d 275].) Here, we can fairly discern a legislative intent not to permit evidence of voluntary intoxication to support a claim of unreasonable self-defense.
Additionally, the same amici curiae argue that limiting admission of evidence of voluntary intoxication in this way would violate a criminal defendant’s due process rights because the prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument would prevent the Legislature from placing any limits on the use of voluntary intoxication to negate a mental state of a crime. The same argument, for example, would apply to section 29.4’s prohibition of admission of evidence of voluntary intoxication on the issue of implied malice. The prosecution certainly does have the burden of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not prohibit the Legislature from making policy judgments regarding when evidence of voluntary intoxication may, and when it may not, be admitted to negate a required mental state.
In Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) 518 U.S. 37 [135 L. Ed. 2d 361, 116 S. Ct. 2013], the United States Supreme Court upheld against a due process attack a Montana statute providing “that voluntary intoxication ‘may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of [a criminal] offense.’” (Id. at pp. 39–40.) In People v. Atkins, supra, 25 Cal.4th at page 93, we cited Egelhoff in rejecting the “defendant’s argument that the withholding of voluntary intoxication evidence to negate the mental state of arson violates his due process rights by denying him the opportunity to prove he did not possess the required mental state.” We reach a similar conclusion here.
“Montana v. Egelhoff[, supra,] 518 U.S. 37 … rejected the claim of a defendant convicted of purposely or knowingly causing the death of a person that he was denied federal due process by a state law that barred consideration of voluntary intoxication ‘“in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of [a criminal] offense.”’ (Id. at p. 40.) Four justices concurred in an opinion holding the rule that ‘intoxication may be considered on the question of intent … was [not] so deeply rooted … as to be a fundamental principle which th[e Fourteenth] Amendment [has] enshrined.’ (Id. at p. 48.) Justice Ginsburg concurred in upholding the statute. Declaring ‘“[a] state legislature certainly has the authority to identify the elements of the offenses it wishes to punish,” … and to exclude evidence irrelevant to the crime it has defined’ (id. at p. 57 (conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.), citation omitted), she distinguished between invalid laws ‘designed to keep out “relevant, exculpatory evidence”’ (ibid. (conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.)) and valid laws that merely ‘redefin[e] … the mental-state element of the offense’ (ibid. (conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.)), and concluded the Montana statute fell into the latter category (id. at pp. 57–59 (conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.)).
We agree with these cases. The Legislature has decided, for policy reasons, that evidence of voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to proof of certain mental states. The Legislature may validly make that policy decision.
For these reasons, we conclude the trial court correctly instructed the jury on how it could consider defendant’s evidence of voluntary intoxication.
Although the Court of Appeal incorrectly found error, it found that error harmless and affirmed the judgment. Therefore, it reached the correct result. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We also disapprove the Court of Appeal’s opinion to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.
Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Corrigan, J., Cuéllar, J., and Kruger, J., concurred.
LIU, J., Concurring and Dissenting.—Penal Code section 29.4, subdivision (b) (section 29.4(b)) says: “Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible … on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought.” (Italics added; all statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Because express malice requires the intent to kill “unlawfully” (§ 188), “‘one who holds an honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury does not harbor malice’” (People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 134 [172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413, 325 P.3d 951]). Thus, evidence of defendant Juaquin Garcia Soto’s voluntary intoxication was admissible to show whether he intentionally killed Israel Ramirez under the honest but unreasonable belief that he needed to act in self-defense.
The court does not claim that the text of section 29.4(b) is ambiguous, that giving effect to its plain meaning would lead to absurd results, or that a contrary legislative intent is “‘apparent in the statute.’” (Baker, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 442, italics added.) Notwithstanding the court’s policy views on whether evidence of voluntary intoxication should be admissible on matters of “judgment” as opposed to “‘complex cogitation’” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 976–977), there is no basis for us to carve out an exception from section 29.4(b) where none exists. Section 29.4(b) says “[e]vidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible … on the issue of whether or not the defendant … , when charged with murder, … harbored express malice aforethought.” I would apply the statute in accordance with its plain meaning and hold that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible on the issue of unreasonable self-defense when it negates express malice.
The court makes a perfectly good policy argument. But it offers no evidence that the Legislature, in overruling Whitfield , intended to extend Justice Mosk’s reasoning to a claim of unreasonable self-defense to negate express malice. Whitfield only concerned the admissibility of voluntary intoxication to negate implied malice. The defendant in Whitfield argued that due to his intoxication, he was essentially unconscious and therefore did not actually harbor a conscious disregard of life when he drove his car and caused a fatal accident. (Whitfield, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 443.) Because Whitfield had nothing to do with express malice, the Legislature’s overruling of that case does not indicate any intent to alter the rule of admissibility on the issue of express malice.
Even if the Legislature intended to adopt Justice Mosk’s views in Whitfield, it is clear that he, like the majority in Whitfield, was focused on “whether evidence of voluntary intoxication is relevant to negate implied malice aforethought, specifically its subjective component of conscious and antisocial disregard for human life.” (Whitfield, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 459 (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) The court says a person who unreasonably believes another person poses a mortal threat has committed an error in judgment of the same type that, under Justice Mosk’s reasoning, should not be negated by voluntary intoxication. Again, that is a fine policy argument. But nothing in Whitfield or section 29.4(b)’s history mentions unreasonable self-defense. Although the court says this is “not surprising” given the “esoteric” nature of the doctrine (maj. opn., ante, at p. 978), the fact is that unreasonable self-defense is of long-standing vintage in California (In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 776–778 [30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33, 872 P.2d 574] [tracing the doctrine to 1936 case law]), and we do not infer an intent by the Legislature to change the law “by implication” (id. at p. 776).
In sum, it is not “clear” from the legislative history that the Legislature broadly intended “to prohibit voluntary intoxication from being an excuse for poor judgment when someone kills.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 978.) What is clear is that the text of section 29.4(b) makes evidence of voluntary intoxication admissible on the issue of whether a defendant charged with murder “harbored express malice aforethought” and sets forth no exceptions.
The court offers one more argument for today’s holding: “[A] different conclusion would give a stronger case for unreasonable self-defense to those who act with express malice than to those who act with implied malice.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 978.) Although the court thinks this would be bad policy, the court does not say it would be irrational or absurd. Indeed, there is a rational basis for treating implied malice differently from express malice in this context: In amending section 29.4 to overrule Whitfield, “the Legislature deemed it confusing, in a vehicular homicide case, to allow evidence of voluntary intoxication to aggravate as well as to mitigate the offense.” (People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1302 [60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677]; see ibid. [rejecting claim that the statute violates equal protection “because it applies different rules to defendants accused of killing with implied malice than it applies to those accused of killing with express malice”].) We routinely decline to second-guess the Legislature’s policy judgments in defining degrees of culpability and punishment, even where the penal scheme arguably punishes a “lesser crime” more harshly than a “greater crime.” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 78 [144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489, 281 P.3d 464]; see People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 840 [16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420, 94 P.3d 551].) Notwithstanding the court’s own views of fairness, there is no absurd consequence that justifies a refusal to give effect to section 29.4(b)’s plain meaning.
There is nothing wrong with deciding, in our independent judgment, to adopt the reasoning of a federal precedent as a matter of state constitutional law. But here the court simply says it “agree[s]” with appellate decisions that have relied on Egelhoff to uphold section 29.4(b). (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 981.) What exactly is the court’s reasoning? Because Egelhoff is a ruling with no majority opinion, should not the court at least explain, in its independent judgment, whether it is following the four-justice plurality in treating section 29.4(b) as an evidentiary rule or Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence in treating section 29.4(b) as a substantive definition of criminal offenses? Perhaps we can infer, although it is not clear, that the court is treating section 29.4(b) as an evidentiary rule. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 980–981.) If that is so, then should not the court explain why, in its independent judgment, it finds the four-justice plurality in Egelhoff more persuasive than the four-justice dissent? (See Egelhoff, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 61 (dis. opn. of O’Connor, J.).) Today’s opinion lacks any independent reasoning in support of its due process holding under state law.
But there is no similar federalism concern when a state court reviews a state statute under the state constitution. (See Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 30–31 [131 L. Ed. 2d 34, 115 S. Ct. 1185] (dis. opn. of Ginsburg, J.) [“[The high court] is reluctant to intrude too deeply into areas traditionally regulated by the States. This aspect of federalism does not touch or concern state courts interpreting state law.”].) Variation among states may signal the strength or weakness of substantive justifications for the evidentiary rule at issue and, for that reason, may inform the state due process inquiry. But the fact of state variation does not in and of itself have any bearing on the state constitutional analysis. The state law analysis must instead grapple with the basic fairness or unfairness of the evidentiary rule, an issue on which the four-justice plurality and four-justice dissent in Egelhoff vigorously disagreed. (Compare Egelhoff, supra, 518 U.S. at pp. 49–55 (plur. opn.) [due process permits restrictions on relevant evidence for valid reasons, and state rule barring intoxication evidence deters irresponsible behavior, comports with the moral perception that one who voluntarily impairs his faculties is responsible for the consequences, and excludes misleading evidence from the jury] with id. at pp. 61–68 (dis. opn. of O’Connor, J.) [state rule barring intoxication evidence denies a criminal defendant a fair opportunity to present a defense and relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt].) Today’s opinion grapples with none of this.
In sum, the court’s endorsement of Egelhoff’s result, unaccompanied by any evaluation of the high court’s split reasoning or any other independent analysis of the issue, does not give due regard to the independent force and effect of rights guaranteed by our state Constitution.
Although the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Soto’s voluntary intoxication, I concur in today’s judgment because the exclusion was harmless under any standard of prejudice, whether the jury believed the prosecution’s or Soto’s version of events. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. Ct. 824].) According to the prosecution, Soto attacked Ramirez with a knife when Ramirez was sitting on his couch, after which Ramirez retrieved a knife from his kitchen and engaged Soto. The fight spilled out into the hallway outside Ramirez’s apartment, where Soto ultimately killed Ramirez. On this version, the jury would have concluded that Soto was the initial aggressor and not entitled to claim self-defense.
According to Soto, Ramirez went to the kitchen when Soto entered the apartment. Soto turned to leave but saw Ramirez come at him with a 10-inch knife. The two started fighting, but at some point, Soto sought to withdraw from the altercation by leaving the apartment. As he headed down the hallway outside the apartment, he sensed Ramirez come after him and turned around and re-engaged him. Soto then fell; as Ramirez continued to attack him, Soto stabbed wildly until Ramirez went still. On this version, Ramirez’s killing would have been entirely justified. If Ramirez was the initial aggressor or Soto properly withdrew, then Soto was entitled to defend himself when he saw Ramirez come at him with a 10-inch knife; it would have been reasonable for Soto to believe he was in mortal danger. There is no place for unreasonable self-defense—only reasonable self-defense, which the jury rejected by convicting Soto of murder.
Soto posits that unreasonable self-defense could have been a plausible theory if, after Ramirez re-engaged Soto in the hallway, Soto successfully neutralized Ramirez without killing him but, due to his intoxication, failed to realize that Ramirez was no longer a threat and continued attacking him until he died. But there is no evidence that Ramirez had been disabled at some point before the fatal blow in a manner that a sober and reasonable person in the same circumstances would have recognized. Indeed, Soto’s own testimony indicated that he was stabbing wildly to get Ramirez off of him until Ramirez went limp.
Because there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have returned a different verdict if evidence of Soto’s intoxication had been admitted, I concur in today’s affirmance of the judgment.
*. Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
1. All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2 At the time of the offense, section 29.4 was former section 22. (Stats. 1995, ch. 793, § 1, pp. 6149–6150.) In 2012, former section 22 was renumbered section 29.4 without substantive change. (Stats. 2012, ch. 162, § 119.) Except when specifically discussing former section 22, we will refer to the statute by its current number.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 119