Menendez v. Terhune
422 F.3d 1012 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense based on a generalized fear of future harm; the defense requires substantial evidence that the defendant held an actual belief of imminent peril that needed to be instantly dealt with. Furthermore, due process under Ake v. Oklahoma does not protect communications with a psychotherapist when the relationship is for ongoing therapy initiated by the defendant, rather than for evaluation and assistance in preparing a defense at the direction of counsel.
Facts:
- Erik Menendez told his brother, Lyle Menendez, that their father, Jose Menendez, had been sexually abusing him for years.
- After Lyle confronted Jose about the abuse, Jose allegedly made a veiled threat, leading the brothers to believe their parents might kill them.
- On August 18, 1989, two days before the killings, Lyle and Erik drove to San Diego and purchased two shotguns using false identification.
- The brothers also purchased buckshot ammunition after being told the birdshot they had was ineffective for 'stopping' a person.
- On the evening of August 20, 1989, following a family argument, Lyle and Erik retrieved the loaded shotguns from their car.
- The brothers then entered the family den and fired thirteen to fifteen shotgun blasts at their unarmed parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, who were watching television.
- Immediately after the killings, the brothers collected the spent shotgun shells, purchased movie tickets to create an alibi, and disposed of the shells and bloody clothing in a gas station trash can.
- The brothers then called 911, feigning hysteria and claiming to have just discovered their parents' bodies, later telling police they suspected a Mafia hit.
Procedural Posture:
- Lyle and Erik Menendez were charged with murder in Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court of first instance).
- Their first trial in 1993, conducted with separate juries for each brother, resulted in two hung juries.
- The brothers were retried in a second trial before a single jury.
- The jury found both brothers guilty of first-degree murder, and they were sentenced to life in prison without parole.
- The California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the convictions.
- The California Supreme Court (state's highest court) denied review of the appellate court's decision.
- Lyle and Erik Menendez each filed separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The district court denied both petitions, leading to this consolidated appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense violate a defendant's due process rights when the evidence shows the defendant feared future, but not imminent, peril?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Trott
No, the trial court's refusal to instruct on imperfect self-defense does not violate due process where the evidence fails to show a fear of imminent peril. A defendant is only entitled to such an instruction under California law if there is substantial evidence of an actual belief in the need to defend against an immediate, present, and apparent danger. Erik's own testimony revealed he feared what his parents might do after they left the den, indicating a fear of prospective, not imminent, harm. The court reasoned that these killings were 'pre-emptive strikes,' which do not satisfy the imminence requirement for self-defense. The court also rejected the petitioners' other claims, holding that: (1) the admission of a therapy tape did not violate Ake v. Oklahoma because the sessions were for therapy, not defense preparation; (2) requiring Lyle to lay a foundation (i.e., testify to his state of mind) before admitting corroborating evidence did not violate his constitutional rights; and (3) the prosecutor's closing arguments were permissible comments on the evidence and did not render the trial unfair.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict imminence requirement for self-defense claims, clarifying that a history of abuse and a generalized fear of future harm are insufficient to warrant a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense. The ruling also narrowly construes the constitutional protections established in Ake v. Oklahoma, limiting its application to psychotherapists retained specifically by counsel for defense preparation, not pre-existing therapeutic relationships. The case affirms a trial judge's broad discretion to manage evidence by requiring a proper foundation, even if that foundation can practically only be laid by the defendant's own testimony, thereby preserving the distinction between evidentiary rules and compulsion to testify.
