People v. Zinda
2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 74, 233 Cal.App.4th 871, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the defenses of justifiable homicide or mistake of fact where there is no substantial evidence to support them, such as a lack of evidence of an actual arrest attempt, and where the defenses are inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case at trial.
Facts:
- After drinking with friends, David Valdez became intoxicated and drove his Honda Passport into a ditch near Steven Andrew Zinda's house around 2:00 a.m.
- Valdez's friends left in a separate truck to retrieve tow chains, leaving Valdez alone to wait with his disabled vehicle.
- Meanwhile, Zinda, who believed local gang members intended to steal from him, returned home to check on his house and discovered a burglary in progress.
- After one burglar fled in a car, Zinda entered his house, grabbed an axe, and came back outside.
- Zinda saw Valdez waiting by the side of the road and assumed he was involved in the burglary.
- Zinda confronted Valdez with the axe, yelling, "Did your buddies leave you, man?", which caused Valdez to run away.
- Zinda chased Valdez for approximately a quarter of a mile into a field.
- Upon catching him, Zinda struck Valdez multiple times with the axe, killing him, and later stated he did so because Valdez looked like he wasn't a good person and might threaten his life.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Andrew Zinda was prosecuted in a California trial court.
- A jury convicted Zinda of second degree murder and found that he had personally used a deadly weapon.
- The trial court sentenced Zinda to a prison term of 15 years to life, plus a consecutive one-year term.
- Zinda, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Third 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 a trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the defenses of justifiable homicide in making an arrest and mistake of fact when there is no evidence the defendant was attempting to make an arrest and these defenses are inconsistent with the defendant's trial theory that the killing was unlawful voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoch, J.
No. A trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on justifiable homicide or mistake of fact if the defenses are not supported by substantial evidence or are inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case. The court reasoned that a sua sponte instruction is only required when openly connected with the facts. Here, the justifiable homicide defense failed because there was no evidence Zinda was attempting to arrest Valdez; his own statements indicated he chased and killed Valdez out of suspicion and anger. Furthermore, Zinda lacked probable cause to arrest Valdez, as Valdez's mere presence and flight from a man with an axe did not implicate him in the burglary. Crucially, this defense was inconsistent with Zinda's trial theory, which conceded the killing was unlawful but argued it was voluntary manslaughter due to heat of passion. Similarly, the mistake of fact defense was unsupported because Zinda's mistaken belief that Valdez was a burglar, even if true, would not make the act of chasing and killing him with an axe an 'innocent act' required for the defense.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for a private citizen to claim justifiable homicide when apprehending a felon, emphasizing that the citizen's actions must constitute a genuine attempt to arrest, supported by probable cause, rather than vigilante justice. It reinforces the principle that a defendant cannot adopt one trial strategy (e.g., admitting an unlawful killing but arguing for a lesser offense like manslaughter) and then argue on appeal that the court should have instructed on a contradictory defense (e.g., a lawful, justifiable killing). The decision limits the availability of these defenses to situations where they are factually supported and consistent with the defendant's narrative at trial, preventing defendants from getting a 'second bite at the apple' with a new theory on appeal.
