People v. Schuller

• Docket Number: S272237
• Decision Date: 17 August 2023
• Citation: 533 P.3d 908,311 Cal.Rptr.3d 830,15 Cal. 5th 237
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jason Carl SCHULLER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

15 Cal.5th 237

533 P.3d 908

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 830

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Jason Carl SCHULLER, Defendant and Appellant.

S272237

Supreme Court of California.

August 17, 2023

David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary K. McComb, State Public Defender, Sacramento, Anne W. Lackey, San Francisco, and William Whaley, Deputy State Public Defenders, and Jessie Peterson for the Office of the State Public Defender as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala Harris, Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs, Christopher J. Rench, Eric L. Christoffersen, Jennifer M. Poe, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Groban, J.

California defines the crime of murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.The prosecution here relied on a theory of express malice, which requires an intent to unlawfully kill.(SeePeople v. Lasko(2000)23 Cal.4th 101, 107, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 999 P.2d 666( Lasko );Pen. Code, § 188.)Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense, however, "[i]f a person kills ... in the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense, the belief negates what would otherwise be malice, and that person is guilty of voluntary manslaughter ..., not murder."( People v. McCoy(2001)25 Cal.4th 1111, 1116, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 24 P.3d 1210.)A defendant charged with murder is entitled to an instruction on imperfect self-defense when there is substantial evidence to support the theory.(SeePeople v. Breverman(1998)19 Cal.4th 142, 162, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094( Breverman ).)

In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for an instruction on imperfect self-defense.The court further concluded that the error was a matter of state law only, and thus subject to the "reasonable probability" standard for evaluating prejudice set forth in People v. Watson(1956)46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243( Watson ).The court explained, however, that even if it were to assume the instructional error was subject to the stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies to federal constitutional errors (seeChapman v. California(1967)386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705( Chapman )), it would still find Schuller had suffered no prejudice based on the "overwhelming evidence that [he] was not acting in any form of self-defense."( People v. Schuller(2021)72 Cal.App.5th 221, 238, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 309( Schuller ).)

We granted review to decide the appropriate standard for evaluating prejudice in this context.We now hold that when the record contains substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense, the trial court's failure to instruct on that theory amounts to constitutional error and is thus subject to review under the federal Chapman standard."A jury misinstruction that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove an element of the crime — by either misdescribing the element or omitting it entirely — violates [the federal Constitution]."( People v. Hendrix(2022)13 Cal.5th 933, 942, 297 Cal.Rptr.3d 278, 515 P.3d 22( Hendrix );seePeople v. Wilkins(2013)56 Cal.4th 333, 349, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 519, 295 P.3d 903( Wilkins )["incomplete" or "misleading" instruction on element of the crime constitutes federal constitutional error].)When imperfect self-defense is at issue, the malice element of murder requires the People to show the absence of that circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.( People v. Rios(2000)23 Cal.4th 450, 463, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 512, 2 P.3d 1066( Rios ).)Thus, when there is substantial evidence to support the theory, the failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense amounts to an incomplete instruction on an actual element of murder, namely malice.In the absence of such an instruction, jurors would have no reason to conclude they cannot find malice (and thus cannot return a verdict of murder) if they harbor a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in the actual, but unreasonable, belief in the need for self-defense.Because this form of misinstruction precludes the jury from making a finding on a factual issue that is necessary to establish the element of malice, it qualifies as federal error.(SeeIn re Winship(1970)397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368( Winship )["the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged"];Neder v. United States(1999)527 U.S. 1, 10, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35( Neder )["erroneous instruction [that] precludes the jury from making a finding on the actual element of the offense" amounts to constitutional error].)

We further hold that the Court of Appeal's harmless error analysis did not comport with the standards for evaluating prejudice required under Chapman , supra , 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824.As we recently clarified in In re Lopez(2023)14 Cal.5th 562, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 526 P.3d 88( Lopez ), that standard compels the reviewing court to reverse the conviction unless it concludes that no "rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial could have had reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant[absent the instructional error]."( Id . at p. 591, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 526 P.3d 88.)Because the court's analysis indicates that it did not "fully appreciate[ ] the proper standard for harmlessness"( id . at p. 568, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 526 P.3d 88 ), we reverse the judgment affirming Schuller's conviction and remand the matter with directions that the court reconsider whether the failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.(Seeid . at p. 592, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 526 P.3d 88[remanding question of prejudice where court's analysis showed it did not apply the standard that Chapman requires].)

I.BACKGROUND

The Nevada County District Attorney charged defendantJason Schuller with the first degree murder of W.T. and further alleged that Schuller had personally used and discharged a firearm causing death.( Pen. Code, §§ 187,12022.53.)¹Schuller pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and the case proceeded to trial.

A.Trial Court Proceedings

1.Evidence at trial

a. Prosecution's case-in-chief

Jesse McKenna, W.T.’s neighbor and close friend, testified that Schuller visited W.T. frequently and had temporarily lived at his residence.In early 2016, however, W.T. told McKenna that Schuller was no longer welcome at his home.On the night of March 20, 2016, McKenna returned from a dinner and was surprised to see Schuller's vehicle, a white Chrysler 300, parked outside of W.T.’s home.Shortly after McKenna entered his house, he heard multiple rounds of gunshots and then saw Schuller's car speed away from W.T.’s home.

As McKenna approached W.T.’s residence he saw W.T.’s daughter H.T., who lived in a second-floor unit directly above W.T., pacing in front of the window.McKenna knocked on H.T.’s door and asked her if she had heard gunshots.She said she was uncertain what she had heard, but that a noise had caused her apartment to rattle.McKenna then went downstairs to check on W.T.When he entered the residence, he saw "flames coming out of [the] house" and W.T.’s burning body lying on the floor.McKenna ran back to his house to retrieve a fire extinguisher.When he returned, H.T. had come down to her father's apartment.As McKenna tried to put out the fire, he noticed that all four burners of the gas stove had been opened and "turned on full bore without flames," like someone was trying to "blow the place up."McKenna called 911 and provided a description of Schuller's car.

H.T. testified that Schuller had become friends with her father and started staying on his couch from time to time.On the night of March 20, 2016, she observed Schuller's car parked outside her father's apartment.Shortly thereafter, she heard a succession of sounds like metal hitting metal coming from the residence and then "a very loud sound that physically shook the house."She then observed Schuller's vehicle leaving the home at a high rate of speed.When H.T. entered the apartment, she observed smoke and her father's body lying on the ground surrounded by shell casings, with his dentures out of his mouth.

Shortly after Schuller was seen leaving W.T.’s residence, police began pursuing a white Chrysler 300 in the area.Schuller was driving the vehicle and refused to stop, resulting in a 38-mile high-speed pursuit that ended only after the vehicle's tires were punctured with strip spikes.The handgun used in the shooting of W.T. was found in the car.

Investigating officers testified that 13 shell casings were recovered from the area near W.T.’s body.A gun case, a gas can and a large knife were found on the kitchen table.Although there was significant blood spatter on the walls and floor, there was no blood on the knife.W.T.’s cell phone was found under the table with a bullet lodged in it.The apartment had sustained fire damage and smelled of gas.Nevada County Fire District ChiefJim Turner determined that gasoline had been poured on the body and ignited.An autopsy revealed W.T. had sustained nine gunshot wounds to the left side of his head, with five shots entering the "facial area" and four shots entering above his ear in the "cranial area."W.T.’s body also exhibited significant burn injuries.According to the pathologist, the nature of the burn markings indicated W.T.’s body had been ignited after he was dead.

b. The defense's case

Schuller testified that he met W.T. after moving from Nebraska to California in 2013.Over the next few years,...