People v. Mehserle
206 Cal.App.4th 1125, 2012 WL 2053774, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer's mistaken use of a handgun instead of a Taser can constitute criminal negligence sufficient for an involuntary manslaughter conviction if the officer's conduct represents a gross departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances, evidencing a disregard for human life or an indifference to consequences.
Facts:
- On January 1, 2009, a large fistfight broke out on a crowded Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train.
- BART Officer Anthony Pirone responded aggressively, detaining several men, including Oscar Grant, on the Fruitvale station platform.
- BART Officer Johannes Mehserle arrived on the tense scene to assist Pirone in arresting Grant for resisting an officer.
- Mehserle carried a black Sig Sauer handgun on his dominant (right) side and a bright yellow Taser on his non-dominant (left) side in a cross-draw holster; the handgun was more than three times heavier than the Taser and had a more complex holster mechanism.
- While Pirone knelt on the neck of Grant, who was lying face-down, unarmed, and audibly surrendering, Mehserle attempted to handcuff him.
- Stating that Grant was resisting and his hands were in his waistband, Mehserle announced his intent to use his Taser.
- After struggling to pull the weapon from its holster, Mehserle drew his handgun instead of his Taser and fired a single, fatal shot into Grant's back.
- Immediately after the shooting, Mehserle expressed surprise and told another officer he thought Grant was going for a gun, making no mention of having mistaken his weapon.
Procedural Posture:
- The People of California charged defendant Johannes Mehserle in a state trial court with the murder of Oscar Grant.
- A jury found Mehserle not guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and found a firearm enhancement to be true.
- The trial court, ruling on a motion for a new trial, dismissed the firearm enhancement but upheld the involuntary manslaughter conviction.
- The trial court denied probation and sentenced Mehserle to two years in state prison.
- Mehserle (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal, First District.
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 sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that a police officer acted with criminal negligence when he mistakenly drew and fired his handgun instead of his Taser, resulting in an unarmed man's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Marchiano, P. J.
Yes, sufficient evidence supports the conviction for involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence. An act is criminally negligent when a person's conduct is such a departure from what an ordinary prudent person would do that it demonstrates a disregard for human life or indifference to consequences. The jury could reasonably find Mehserle's conduct met this standard because of the significant physical differences between his handgun and Taser—including weight, color, holster location, and holster mechanism—which a reasonably prudent officer should have been able to distinguish. Furthermore, Mehserle had drawn his Taser earlier that night, and video showed him struggling to remove the handgun from its holster, which should have alerted him that he was holding the wrong weapon. The court rejected the defense's request to create a higher, more lenient standard of negligence for police officers, affirming that the objective 'reasonable person' standard applies to all individuals, including law enforcement.
Analysis:
This decision affirms that the established California standard for criminal negligence applies to on-duty police officers, rejecting the creation of a special, more forgiving standard for law enforcement actions. It solidifies the principle that an officer's mistake of fact, such as weapon confusion, does not automatically excuse a resulting death if the mistake itself was the result of gross negligence. The case serves as a precedent that juries can find criminal liability by objectively evaluating the totality of the circumstances surrounding an officer's actions, even in a high-stress environment, against the standard of a reasonably prudent person.
