Opinion ID: 2590549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct Regarding the Effect of Provocation on a Finding of Premeditation and Deliberation

Text: Defendant contends in light of testimony that the murder of David Adkins and the attempted murder of Kenneth Shy may have been precipitated by one or more gang challenges, the trial court's failure to instruct sua sponte that evidence of provocation may reduce a murder from first to second degree violated various constitutional rights. Specifically, he argues the court should have given CALJIC No. 8.73 (5th ed.1988), which provides: When the evidence shows the existence of provocation that played a part in inducing the unlawful killing of a human being, but also shows that such provocation was not such as to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, and you find that the killing was murder, you may consider the evidence of provocation for such bearing as it may have on the question of whether the murder was of the first or second degree. [5] According to defendant, unlike CALJIC No. 8.42, which the court gave, CALJIC No. 8.73 serves to alert the jury that a lesser provocation, not measured by an `objective' standard, has legal significance and may suffice to vitiate a finding of premeditation. As such, defendant contends the failure to give this instruction deprived him of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On this record, we find that CALJIC No. 8.73 amounted to a pinpoint instruction on the effect of provocation, a refinement of the basic principles set forth in CALJIC No. 8.42. A pinpoint instruction relate[s] particular facts to a legal issue in the case or `pinpoint[s]' the crux of a defendant's case, such as mistaken identification or alibi. ( People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588.) A trial court must give a pinpoint instruction, even when requested, only if it is supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262.) The evidentiary premise of a provocation defense is the defendant's emotional reaction to the conduct of another, which emotion may negate a requisite mental state. Here, defendant argues gang challenges by Adkins  eventually responding Neighborhood to Anthony Bereal's goading  may have emotionally aroused and provoked his assault on the victims. However, the record contains no evidence of what, if any, response defendant had to the purported challenges, assuming Adkins's response was so interpreted. Absent an evidentiary basis, there was no error in the failure to give CALJIC No. 8.73.