Lexplug logoLexplug

The People v. Huey P. Newton

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four
8 Cal.App.3d 359 (1970)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on its own motion regarding the complete defense of unconsciousness whenever there is evidence deserving of consideration to support it. An omission to do so is prejudicial error, and the defendant is not barred from raising the issue on appeal under the invited error doctrine unless their counsel's failure to request the instruction was for a deliberate tactical purpose.


Facts:

  • Oakland Police Officer John Frey initiated a traffic stop of a Volkswagen driven by Huey P. Newton.
  • Officer Herbert Heanes arrived as backup shortly thereafter.
  • After a brief exchange, Officer Frey informed Newton that he was under arrest and ordered him out of the vehicle.
  • Newton exited the car and was escorted to the rear of the police vehicles, where a physical altercation ensued.
  • During the altercation, Officer Frey was fatally shot five times, Officer Heanes was shot three times, and Newton sustained a gunshot wound to his abdomen.
  • Newton testified that Officer Frey struck him, causing him to fall, and after being shot in the stomach, he felt a sensation like "boiling hot soup," heard explosions, and remembered nothing until he was at the entrance of a hospital.
  • A medical expert for the defense testified that a gunshot wound to the abdomen is likely to produce a profound reflex shock reaction, which can cause a person to lose consciousness for a short period while still being physically active.

Procedural Posture:

  • Huey P. Newton was charged by an Alameda County Grand Jury indictment with murder, assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer, and kidnaping.
  • At trial in the superior court, Newton's counsel initially submitted a request for jury instructions on the defense of unconsciousness.
  • During an unreported conference in chambers, defense counsel withdrew the request for instructions on unconsciousness.
  • The trial court granted a motion for acquittal on the kidnaping charge.
  • The jury acquitted Newton on the assault charge but found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter for the death of Officer Frey.
  • The trial court denied Newton's motions for a new trial and for probation and sentenced him to state prison.
  • Newton appealed his conviction for voluntary manslaughter to the California Court of Appeal.

Locked

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 have a duty to instruct the jury on the defense of unconsciousness on its own motion where the evidence supports it, even if defense counsel withdraws the initial request for such an instruction?


Opinions:

Majority - Rattigan, J.

Yes. A trial court must instruct the jury on its own motion on the defense of unconsciousness if the evidence supports it, and the failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error. Unconsciousness, if not self-induced, is a complete defense to a charge of criminal homicide because it negates the capacity to commit any crime. The court found that Newton's testimony, corroborated by medical expert testimony, was sufficient evidence to require the instruction. The court rejected the argument that the defense 'invited' the error by withdrawing the instruction request, holding that the invited error doctrine only applies if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose. Because unconsciousness was Newton's only complete defense, withdrawing the instruction could not have been a rational tactical decision and was likely the result of mistake or neglect, thus not precluding review on appeal.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the trial court's sua sponte (on its own motion) duty to instruct on fundamental defenses, even when not requested by counsel. It significantly narrows the application of the 'invited error' doctrine, establishing that a defendant's right to have the jury consider a crucial defense is not waived by counsel's mere mistake, ignorance, or failure to press the issue. The ruling emphasizes that for an error to be 'invited,' the record must show a clear, deliberate tactical reason for counsel's action, thereby protecting a defendant's constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: The People v. Huey P. Newton (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"