Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

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

Text: Defendant's jury was instructed on first degree murder, second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. Defense counsel raised the issue of whether defendant was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness such that he would be entitled to an instruction on involuntary manslaughter. Counsel conceded there was no such evidence but argued the standard involuntary manslaughter instruction should be modified to permit defendant's intoxication to negate intent to kill. The trial court said it would consider a proposed modification if counsel would present one to the court, but counsel apparently let the matter drop, for the proposed instruction was not mentioned again. Defendant now argues the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is ordinarily a lesser offense of murder. ( People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 422, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) One commits involuntary manslaughter either by committing `an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony' or by committing `a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. (§ 192, subd. (b).) If the evidence presents a material issue of whether a killing was committed without malice, and if there is substantial evidence the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter, failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter would violate the defendant's constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue. ( People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 596, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 22, 139 P.3d 492.) Counsel here conceded there was insufficient evidence to warrant an instruction on involuntary manslaughter. [9] We agree. When a person renders himself or herself unconscious through voluntary intoxication and kills in that state, the killing is attributed to his or her negligence in self-intoxicating to that point, and is treated as involuntary manslaughter. `Unconsciousness is ordinarily a complete defense to a charge of criminal homicide. (Pen.Code, § 26, subd. [Four].) If the state of unconsciousness results from intoxication voluntarily induced, however, it is not a complete defense. (Pen.Code, § 22.) ... [I]f the intoxication is voluntarily induced, it can never excuse homicide. [Citation.] Thus, the requisite element of criminal negligence is deemed to exist irrespective of unconsciousness, and a defendant stands guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he voluntarily procured his own intoxication.' ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 423, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) Such a person need not be incapable of movement. ( People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 343, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) The evidence here shows defendant had consumed some unknown amount of alcohol, but there was no evidence he was so intoxicated that he could be considered unconscious. He went to the victim's home, spoke to his brother Chachi, killed Loza, and then ransacked her and Carlon's bedrooms, loading Loza's car with stolen items before driving away. Later, he tried to sell the stolen goods to Leonard Mercado. Nothing in these facts even hints that defendant was so grossly intoxicated as to have been considered unconscious. Even assuming the court erred, the failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter was harmless. The jury was properly instructed on first degree murder, second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. As in People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at page 884, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135: The jury rejected the lesser options and found defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder. Under the circumstances, there is no reasonable probability that, had the jury been instructed on involuntary manslaughter, it would have chosen that option. Moreover, the jury having convicted defendant of robbery, sodomy and burglary and having sustained the associated special circumstances, defendant was necessarily guilty of first degree felony murder if he had any responsibility at all for the killing. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter.