People v. Romero
81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 823 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of cultural norms or a subculture's code of conduct, such as a 'street fighter's code,' is irrelevant and inadmissible to establish the objective reasonableness of a defendant's belief in the need for self-defense.
Facts:
- Tommy Romero and a group of friends were crossing a street when Alex Bernal sped around the corner in his car, forcing him to brake quickly.
- An argument ensued, with Romero and his friends yelling at Bernal, who in turn yelled back.
- Bernal pulled his car over, exited, and a physical fight began between Bernal, Romero, and others.
- Bernal, who was unarmed, kicked into the air and exchanged blows with Romero and another man.
- After the initial scuffle began to break up and Bernal started to walk away, he yelled, 'I’ll be back.'
- In response, Romero took out a knife, swung it at Bernal several times, and stabbed him in the chest.
- Bernal died from the stab wound to his heart.
- Romero later testified that his intention was to 'stop' Bernal but admitted, 'I can’t say that I was scared.'
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Tommy Romero with murder and personal use of a knife in the Superior Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Romero pled not guilty.
- At trial, the court excluded proposed expert testimony from a sociologist regarding Hispanic culture and street violence.
- A jury found Romero guilty of second-degree murder and found the knife-use allegation to be true.
- The trial court denied Romero's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 16 years to life in prison.
- Romero, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred by excluding the expert testimony.
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 the objective 'reasonable person' standard for self-defense permit the introduction of expert testimony on cultural norms, like a 'street fighter' code of honor, to justify a defendant's use of deadly force?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiseman, J.
No, the objective 'reasonable person' standard does not permit such testimony. The standard for perfect self-defense requires that the defendant not only actually (subjectively) believe in the need to defend against imminent harm, but also that this belief be objectively reasonable. The court reasoned that introducing expert testimony about a 'street fighter' mentality or cultural honor would improperly create a separate, lower standard of reasonableness for a specific group, contrary to the law's unitary 'reasonable person' standard. Such sociological evidence is irrelevant to whether the defendant's belief was objectively reasonable under the established legal test. The court emphasized that it was not prepared to sanction a 'reasonable street fighter standard,' distinguishing this case from those involving specific prior threats or the victim's history of violence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the unitary nature of the 'reasonable person' standard in self-defense law. It explicitly rejects attempts to particularize the objective test by introducing cultural or subcultural norms that might excuse violence. The ruling prevents the legal standard from fracturing into multiple, subjective standards (e.g., a 'reasonable gang member' or 'reasonable street fighter' standard), thereby maintaining a consistent benchmark for assessing the justification for deadly force. This case serves as a key precedent against the use of sociological evidence to redefine what constitutes objectively reasonable fear in self-defense claims.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Romero