People v. Newton

California Court of Appeal · 1970 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawHomicideUnconsciousness DefenseJury InstructionsInvited Errorvoluntary manslaughterunconsciousnesscomplete defense

Facts

During a street encounter between defendant and two Oakland police officers, Officer Frey was fatally shot and both defendant and Officer Heanes were also wounded. Defendant testified that after being struck and shot in the abdomen by Officer Frey, he remembered only a sensation of being shot, a volley of shots, and then nothing until arriving at the hospital; a defense doctor testified that such an abdominal wound could cause reflex shock and temporary unconsciousness. Although defense counsel initially requested CALJIC instructions on unconsciousness, the request was withdrawn and the jury was instructed on diminished capacity but not unconsciousness. The jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter.

Issue

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on unconsciousness as a complete defense to homicide when the evidence supported that theory, despite defendant's withdrawal of requested unconsciousness instructions. Also, whether that withdrawal barred appellate review under the invited-error doctrine.

Rule

Where evidence supports a finding of involuntary unconsciousness, unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide, and the trial court must instruct on that defense on its own motion. "Unconsciousness" includes situations where a person physically acts but is not conscious of acting. A defendant is not barred by invited error unless counsel's failure to seek or withdrawal of the instruction reflects a deliberate tactical purpose.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a late-night altercation outside a music venue in Sacramento, Caleb Ortiz was struck in the temple with a metal flashlight. Witnesses said Caleb then continued moving and fired two shots that killed Nolan Price. Caleb testified he remembered the blow, heard a ringing sound, and recalled nothing until paramedics placed him in an ambulance; a neurologist testified that such a head injury can cause a brief state in which a person acts physically without awareness.

At Caleb's homicide trial, which statement best describes the legal significance of the unconsciousness evidence if the jury were to believe it?

Explanation. The governing rule is that involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide. Unconsciousness does not require coma or immobility; it includes circumstances in which the defendant physically acts but is not conscious of acting. Thus, if the jury believed Caleb acted while involuntarily unconscious, he would be entitled to acquittal, not merely mitigation.