Defendant appealed his convictions a jury in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) for murder of the second degree and of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245.
Defendant and three codefendants were walking through their neighborhood looking for trouble. They encountered their first victim walking home from a dance. Defendant started a fight and one codefendant stabbed the victim. They stopped their second victim and asked him if he knew where they could find a party. Riverside ADA lawyer When the victim smiled, the same codefendant stabbed him several times. Defendant kicked the victim after he fell to the ground. The second victim died from his injuries. Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and second-degree murder. On appeal, the court affirmed and held that defendant intelligently and knowingly waived his constitutional rights when the police questioned him. The fact that he was 17 years old did not render his waiver invalid. The court held that defendant was the aggressor or instigator in each assault. The injuries caused his fists and codefendant’s knife differed only as to degree. The court held that the slight blemish upon defendant’s character that resulted from one codefendant’s reference to defendant’s prior record was insignificant as compared with the felonious conduct of defendant that was described to the jury.
The court affirmed defendant’s convictions.
Appellant filed an appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal of California which affirmed the dismissal of his sanity proceedings pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1385(a)
Appellant pleaded not guilty and not guilty reason of insanity to murder and several related charges. The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on insanity. Upon retrial, the second jury reached a unanimous verdict of insanity with regard to some, but not all, of the offenses. As to those remaining offenses, the trial court dismissed the sanity proceedings under Cal. Penal Code § 1385(a) to preserve judicial resources, and found defendant sane. The trial court’s ruling was unauthorized. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, and drawing every legitimate inference in his favor, there was substantial evidence from which reasonable jurors could have concluded that he was insane. Several witnesses testified concerning appellant’s increasingly bizarre behavior at the time of the shootings. In addition, court-appointed psychiatrists testified that in their opinion he was delusional and psychotic when he committed the offenses.
Judgment reversed and the matter remanded; dismissal of sanity proceedings was improper, because there was substantial evidence from which reasonable jurors could have concluded that appellant was insane.
