Opinion ID: 4161961
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vehicular[.]

Text: Because Rivera-Muniz’s conviction was under section 192(a), we need only concern ourselves with the definition of voluntary manslaughter.8 8 We have previously held that a conviction under section 192(c)(3) is not a categorical crime of violence. Gomez-Leon, 545 F.3d at 795–96. 12 UNITED STATES V. RIVERA-MUNIZ Rivera-Muniz suggests that we should bypass this facial identity because California permits a conviction under section 192(a) for unreasonable self-defense, which goes beyond “a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” Cal. Penal Code § 192(a). Unreasonable self-defense is not explicitly stated in California Penal Code section 192(a). Rather, California case law provides that unreasonable self-defense is an alternative way of negating malice aside from heat-of-passion killings. “Punishment is mitigated [for voluntary manslaughter, as] the law deems [it] less blameworthy than murder because of the attendant circumstances and their impact on the defendant’s mental state.” People v. Elmore, 325 P.3d 951, 957 (Cal. 2014). Specifically, “[t]wo factors may preclude the formation of malice and reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter: heat of passion and unreasonable selfdefense.” Id. Rivera-Muniz suggests that this judicial expansion of voluntary manslaughter beyond the statutory text demonstrates that section 192(a) is not a categorical match to the generic definition of manslaughter. Rivera-Muniz ignores cases interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1112 in precisely the same manner. See United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 915 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[In] the typical case of ‘imperfect self-defense,’ . . . the defendant intends to use deadly force in the unreasonable belief that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm. In this circumstance, the offense is classed as voluntary manslaughter.”); see also United States v. Quintero, 21 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Intent without malice, not the heat of passion, is the defining characteristic of voluntary manslaughter.”). He also ignores scholarly commentary suggesting that the generally accepted definition of voluntary manslaughter includes the concept of unreasonable self-defense. See 2 LaFave, supra, § 15.3(a) (collecting cases and statutes making unreasonable selfUNITED STATES V. RIVERA-MUNIZ 13 defense a variant of voluntary manslaughter); Elizabeth D. Lauzon, Annotation, Propriety of Lesser-Included-Offense Charge of Voluntary Manslaughter, 3 A.L.R. 6th 543 (originally published in 2005) (“Voluntary manslaughter has generally been defined, under common law and various state statutes, as the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being by another human being as a result of an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to exercise self-defense (unreasonable/imperfect self-defense theory) or as the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being by another human being in a sudden heat of passion due to serious provocation (heat-of-passion theory).”). In sum, California Penal Code section 192(a) does not stray from the generic definition of voluntary manslaughter, which includes the concept of unreasonable self-defense.