Court Opinion

ID: 9748694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:10:45.525197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:38.602177
License: Public Domain

WORK, J.
I concur fully in the court’s analysis and conclusion in part II. However, although I concur in the result reached in part III, I find its analysis too narrow for the following reasons.
Unlike the majority’s language implies, I am satisfied the rationale which supports the “once bitten, twice shy” instruction approved in People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517 [275 P.2d 485] and other decisions cited, applies equally to law abiding persons who react to what appears to be a surprise violent assault under circumstances similar to an earlier one in which they suffered actual or threats of substantial bodily harm. For instance, elderly pensioners who live in fear each month when they cash their Social Security checks, because they have been assaulted and terrorized regularly in their boarding house rooms by unknown persons bursting through their doors. There is no reason to deny such a victim this defense merely for lack of an allegation the perceived attackers were believed to be the specific bandits who had committed previous assaults, rather than another of the roving bands of criminals who prey on elderly targets of opportunity.
However, there is no legal justification or societal benefit in permitting Gonzales, whose vulnerability to assault arises solely from his choosing to engage in criminal activities, to employ this defense. Gonzales previously had been assaulted and robbed because he possessed narcotics and money generated from sales of illegal drugs. He continued to engage in these activities. To the extent he truly believed he remained a potential target of future assaults, it was because he chose to continue this illegal activity. On *1666these facts Gonzales was not entitled to an instruction on the reasonableness of his violent reaction to the police intrusion.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 10, 1992.