Opinion ID: 2518586
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. (See People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 422, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) A trial court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense, whether or not the defendant so requests, [10] whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty of only the lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury. ( People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154-155, 162, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) Substantial evidence in this context is that which a reasonable jury could find persuasive. ( Id. at p. 162, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) Section 192, subdivision (b) defines involuntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice during the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. As defendant observes, if, in a murder case, evidence of mental illness or intoxication raises a reasonable doubt the defendant premeditated or deliberated, but establishes he did harbor malice aforethought, then he is guilty of second degree murder; if such evidence negates malice aforethought, the only supportable verdict is involuntary manslaughter or acquittal. ( People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588.) Defendant contends he presented substantial evidence that he was mentally ill and intoxicated at the time of the shootings, which could have led a reasonable jury to conclude he lacked malice aforethought. He points to the evidence, recited above, of his deteriorating mental state prior to the crimes and his consumption of alcohol on the day of the offenses, and argues the trial court therefore was required to instruct on involuntary manslaughter. Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidenceincluding defendant's own testimony that he intentionally killed the victims and the manner in which they were shotabundantly established that he intended to kill Ferguson and Perez, and nothing in the record suggested that intoxication or mental illness negated that intent. Nor was there any evidence that defendant was committing only a misdemeanor, or that he was committing a lawful act in an unlawful manner or without due caution. Moreover, in closing argument the defense essentially conceded the element of malice. Consequently, the court did not err in failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder.