Court Opinion

ID: 9746807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:39:03.070291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.033667
License: Public Domain

WOODS, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion the trial court erred in excusing Juror No. 12, but dissent in the holding that the error was reversible. In that regard, I interpret the record differently and vote to affirm the judgment.
At trial, the jury was instructed on murder and manslaughter in addition to conspiracy to commit murder. Additionally, if the jury found appellant had personally committed a first degree murder and was also guilty of another murder, the jury was instructed they could find the special circumstance of multiple murders to be true. (Pen. Code, § 190.2.)
It was the prosecution’s theory that appellant or Hovik (appellant’s associate) had initiated the gun battle and, in response to this provocation, Armen Gekchyan had accidentally shot and killed his brother Vahan Gekchyan. Under the provocative act doctrine of People v. Washington (1965) 62 Cal.2d 777 [44 Cal.Rptr. 442, 402 P.2d 130], this would make appellant guilty of murder the same as if he had fired the fatal shot.
As the majority correctly points out, the trial court drafted its own instruction on the provocative act doctrine and was apparently not aware of *623In re Aurelio R. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 52, 60 [212 Cal.Rptr. 868], and People v. Gallegos (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 453 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 382], which hold that where the defendant attempts to kill or assault someone with a firearm, there is no need for a separate provocative act to be committed: the act of attempting to kill is by itself a provocative act that is likely to draw a deadly response. In this case, as the majority again points out, the jury was instructed that for the doctrine to apply the People had to prove: “(1) The defendant personally committed the crime of attempted murder or the crime of assault with a firearm, as defined elsewhere in these instructions; (2) During the defendant’s commission of the crime of attempted murder or assault with a firearm, the defendant also committed an intentional provocative act; (3) Another person, in response to the provocative act by the defendant, killed Vahan Gekchyan and/or Sarkis Kakachayan; and (4) The defendant’s commission of the intentional provocative act was a cause of the death of Vahan Gekchyan and/or Sarkis Kakachayan.” (Italics added.) The court defined an intentional provocative act in other instructions as being an intentional act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life and the act was performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for human life.
The court’s instruction was too burdensome in that it required the prosecution to prove too much. Attempts to kill or assault someone with a firearm are by themselves provocative acts likely to draw a deadly response. A separate provocative act is not required. (In re Aurelio R., supra, 167 Cal.App.3d 52, 60; People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 453.)
In its argument the prosecution urged that appellant had “capped” off the first round by shooting at Armen Gekchyan thus initiating the deadly responses that ended up with two people fatally wounded. The prosecution further argued the intentional provocative act was the shooting by appellant, “whether it be in the air or at somebody.” The defense concurred with the prosecutor’s conclusion that Vahan Gekchyan had been accidentally killed by his brother, while contending that appellant had not initiated the events. In rebuttal, as the majority points out, the prosecutor argued merely pulling and pointing the guns, even in the air, would qualify as a provocative act even if appellant did not fire first.
The jury, including Juror No. 12, had initially voted to convict appellant with this background before it. Juror No. 12, being apparently cautious, would not totally commit until he found out, “if shooting a gun in the air within city limits is a crime.” Juror No. 12 informed the court he was having problems determining what “additional” provocative act appellant committed. The other jurors were persuaded there had been a separate provocative *624act, but refused to discuss with Juror No. 12 what they believed was the additional provocative act.
The jury turned out to be deadlocked on a nonissue in the case, namely the existence or nonexistence of a separate provocative act. (See In re Aurelio R., supra, 167 Cal.App.3d at p. 60; People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 453.) Under proper instructions, even Juror No. 12 was of the opinion appellant was guilty of murder in the second degree. Thus, appellant would have been convicted and a verdict returned, under proper instruction, before the question on whether shooting a gun in the city limits was asked of the court.
I find no prejudice to appellant by the replacing of Juror No. 12 under these circumstances. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 835-836 [299 P.2d 243].) The error in this case did not amount to structural error requiring automatic reversal within the meaning of the United States Supreme Court cases. (See People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 502-503 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869].) Even using the standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065], the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that up until the very moment of polling the jury, Juror No. 12 could change his mind and vote for acquittal, but under the facts presented I find that a reasonable and probable inference is to be drawn which established beyond a reasonable doubt that no such change of mind would have occurred. I would affirm the judgment.