The Castle Doctrine in California is a law that permits the use of force, including deadly force if someone unlawfully enters a person’s home. This doctrine is regulated by Penal Code section 198.5 PC in California.
California’s Castle Doctrine applies specifically to private residences and does not extend to places like businesses or vehicles. If a homeowner or resident feels they are under imminent threat of bodily injury or death while in their home, they have the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves.
It is essential to note that California isn’t a stand-your-ground state, but this law does recognize the “castle doctrine” in the context of a person’s home. If a homeowner feels that their life or safety is in danger, they are not required to retreat before using force. However, the use of force should be reasonable under the circumstances.
100.03 Grounds for Motion
THE GROUNDS FOR GRANTING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ARE SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED BY PENAL CODE SECTION 1181.1 A NEW TRIAL MAY ALSO BE SOUGHT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED
GROUND THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL OR THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.3
[1] Absence of Defendant During Trial
A criminal defendant has a statutory and constitutional right to be present during his or her trial. The trial of a defendant in absentia, except when such a trial may lawfully take place, is a ground for a new trial. The defendant’s absence from every trial proceeding that he or she could rightfully attend will not automatically result in the granting of a new trial.“ If the defendant’s absence was during a proceeding that may not be deemed “critical,” counsel should consider making a specific allegation of prejudice in addition to merely alleging the defendant’s absence.
For further discussion, see Chapter 80, “Defendant’s Trial Rights.”
[2] Jury’s Reception of Extrajudicial Evidence
It is axiomatic that a criminal defendant is entitled to be tried only on the evidence presented through proper court proceedings. Thus, one of the grounds for a new trial is that the jury improperly received evidence from a source other than the court proceedings.
[3] Jury Misconduct
A defendant is entitled to a new trial if the jury or any jury member is guilty of an act of misconduct that prevents a fair trial and due consideration of the case or if the jury separates without leave of court after retiring to deliberate on a verdict.” There may often be a certain amount of overlap between this ground and the one discussed in [2], above.
For further discussion, see Chapter 85, “Submission to Jury and Verdict.”10-30
[4] Verdict Improperly Reached
It is considered to be a denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and thus a ground for a new trial, if the jury reaches its verdict by lot or any means other than a fair expression of the jurors’ opinions.31 A full discussion of the proper method for deliberation and for rendering a verdict is contained in Chapter 85, “Submission to Jury and Verdict.”
One aspect of the deliberative process that is sometimes considered to fall under the purview of both the Penal Code section prohibiting improper procedures in reaching the verdict and that concerning jury misconduct32 is juror harassment. Harassment may take the form of one juror harassing another so that the verdict is a form of coercion rather than a fair expression of the juror’s beliefs,33 or it may take the form of a court official intimidating the jury into a verdict.34
The distinction between harassment by a fellow juror and by a court official is a significant one, primarily because of the obvious fact that official harassment should be strongly condemned, but also because it will be easier to prove that official harassment did in fact result in a harmful effect on the verdict.3$
[5] Erroneous Ruling by Court
A defendant may be granted a new trial whenever the court has misdirected the jury on a matter of law or erred in any other legal ruling.36 This ground may cover any objection or motion upon which the court rules during the entire course of the trial process. Therefore, when preparing a motion for new trial on this ground, counsel should refer to specific chapters in CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE [et which treat the subject matter under consideration.
For example, a trial court may order a new trial if it finds that the defendant was denied a fair trial due to a previous erroneous ruling denying the defendant a continuance so that he or she could adequately prepare for trial.
In obtaining a new trial on these grounds, the defendant need not show that the denial of a continuance resulted in a miscarriage of justice. A criminal defendant, regardless of guilt or innocence, is entitled to a fair trial, and the denial of the fair trial, in and of itself, results in a miscarriage of justice. The trial court may grant a new trial if it determines that the defendant has been denied a fair trial, and this decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an unmistakable abuse of discretion. This is so, even if the continuance was denied by a presiding judge, and there had been no change of circumstances since then, as a trial judge has an obligation to afford a criminal defendant a bona fide and fair adversary adjudication.37
The erroneous ruling ground may also be urged when the court has made a seemingly favorable ruling that ultimately works to the defendant’s detriment. For example, a new trial was allowed on this ground in a case in which the court sent the case to the jury at the close of the prosecution’s case with the direction to return a verdict of acquittal. As a result, the defendant did not present a defense. When the jury nevertheless convicted the defendant, she was entitled to a new trial.38
[6] Prosecutorial Misconduct
Whenever a prosecutor is guilty of prejudicial misconduct before the jury, the defendant may use the action as the basis for a new trial motion.39 Since this misconduct may occur in various phases of the trial, including during the opening statement, the questioning of witnesses, or the final argument, the chapter of CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE [hat discusses that particular phase of the trial should be consulted to determine whether the particular action under consideration was improper.
The key consideration is whether the misconduct was prejudicial. This is often determined by considering the nature of the prosecutor’s actions in light of the facts of the particular case. Thus, a new trial will result when the case is closely balanced and it may be shown that the misconduct could have materially contributed to the verdict.*
The prosecutor may also be guilty of misconduct before trial which forms the basis for a new trial motion. For example, the suppression or destruction of material evidence may warrant a new trial. For a discussion of these issues, see Chapter 70, “Discovery and Investigation,” and Chapter 83, “Evidence.”
[a] Factual Insufficiency
The trial court is authorized to grant a new trial when it is of the opinion that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The trial court not only has the power to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence, but the duty to do so.43 In making its determination, the court must give the defendant the benefit of its independent judgment as to the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence.
The trial court has the power to apply a two-pronged test during its review: first, a review of the sufficiency of the evidence itself; and second, a determination on whether the court deems the evidence to be believable.
Thus, the trial court could grant a new trial even when the evidence is presented solely by the prosecution and is legally sufficient if it does not believe the witnesses are credible.45 The court also could grant a new trial if the court determined that the evidence is inherently improbable, that is, that the challenged evidence is unbelievable per se, such that the things testified to would not seem possible.45.1
The standard of review by the trial court in these matters is more favorable to the defendant than that which is applied by the appellate court. Rather than independently weighing the credibility of the evidence, the appellate court will refuse to modify or set aside the verdict as long as there is any substantial evidence to support it. This should not be viewed as a difference in the power of the two courts, but as a difference in the circumstances under which the power will be exercised. The trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on this ground will be overturned only when there is an absence of sufficient evidence to support the verdict.*?
The power of the trial court in ruling on a motion for new trial predicated on the insufficiency of the evidence extends only to granting or denying the motion itself: the trial court does not have the authority to acquit the defendant, either explicitly or implicitly on this ground.48 The decision granting the motion bars retrial for the offense if the judge finds the evidence insufficient as a matter of law.49 On appeal, if the reviewing court disagrees and finds the evidence sufficient as a matter of law, the verdict will be reinstated; only if left not to stand when insufficient as a matter of law, is retrial barred.49. Otherwise, retrial is permitted.50
If the prosecution has presented its case to the jury on alternate theories, one of which is factually insufficient, generally reversal on appeal will not be required if there is at least one valid theory on which the jury could have relied. However, reversal will be required if a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory,50.1
The courts of appeal are split over whether a trial court, in granting a motion for a new trial, must state its reasons for finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Second Appellate District, Division Seven appears to be of the view that the reasons must be stated, 50.. while the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two is of of the sufficiency of the evidence itself; and second, a determination on whether the court deems the evidence to be believable. Thus, the trial court could grant a new trial even when the evidence is presented solely by the prosecution and is legally sufficient if it does not believe the witnesses are credible.45 The court also could grant a new trial if the court determined that the evidence is inherently improbable, that is, that the challenged evidence is unbelievable per se, such that the things testified to would not seem possible.45.1
The standard of review by the trial court in these matters is more favorable to the defendant than that which is applied by the appellate court. Rather than independently weigh the credibility of the evidence, the appellate court will refuse to modify or set aside the verdict as long as there is any substantial evidence to support it. This should not be viewed as a difference in the power of the two courts but as a difference in the circumstances under which the power will be exercised. The trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on this ground will be overturned only when there is an absence of sufficient evidence to support the verdict.*?
The power of the trial court in ruling on a motion for a new trial predicated on the insufficiency of the evidence extends only to granting or denying the motion itself: the trial court does not have the authority to acquit the defendant, either explicitly or implicitly on this ground.48 The decision granting the motion bars retrial for the offense if the judge finds the evidence insufficient as a matter of law.49 On appeal, if the reviewing court disagrees and finds the evidence sufficient as a matter of law, the verdict will be reinstated; only if left not to stand when insufficient as a matter of law, is retrial barred.49. Otherwise, retrial is permitted.50
If the prosecution has presented its case to the jury on alternate theories, one of which is factually insufficient, generally reversal on appeal will not be required if there is at least one valid theory on which the jury could have relied. However, reversal will be required if a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory,50.1
The courts of appeal are split over whether a trial court, in granting a motion for a new trial, must state its reasons for finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Second Appellate District, Division Seven appears to be of the view that the reasons must be stated, 50.. while the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two is of
the view that the statement is not required, although it is the better practice for the trial court to make the statement. 50.1.2
[a.1] Legal Insufficiency
The trial court is authorized to grant a new trial when it is of the opinion that the verdict is contrary to the applicable law.
50.2
If the prosecution has presented its case to the jury on alternate theories, one of which involves a legally inadequate theory, generally reversal will be required. However, reversal will not be required if there is a basis in the record to find that the verdict was based on a valid ground, such as when other portions of the verdict so indicate. 50.3
[b] Modification of Verdict
The trial court has the power to modify the verdict rather than grant a motion for a new trial if it believes the defendant to be not guilty of the crime charged but guilty of a lesser degree of the same crime, or of a lesser-included offense.si If the court exercises its power to modify the verdict to that of guilty of a lesser-included offense and the modification becomes a final judgment, the modified conviction bars further prosecution of either the offense originally charged or the lesser-included offense.52
The trial court may properly exercise its authority to modify the verdict to reflect the conviction for a lesser-included offense when the lesser offense fits the definition of a lesser-included crime. For example, the court exceeds its authority when it modifies a conviction for possession of an incendiary device to a conviction for disturbing the peace. However, a trial court may not reduce a jury verdict to a lesser offense based on evidence that was not introduced at trial even when the evidence may be judicially noticed. $4.1
54
A trial court has no authority to modify the verdict to reflect a conviction for a lesser-related offense. If the court concludes that the evidence would have justified conviction of a lesser-related offense, its option is to order a new trial 54.2
In certain cases, the trial court also has the power to modify the punishment that has been imposed. In any case, in which the trial court or jury has the statutory authority to recommend or determine punishment as part of the verdict, the court may modify the verdict by imposing a lesser punishment without granting a new trial.55 Examples of common crimes that are susceptible to modification include first-degree murder when special circumstances are alleged and proved, and unlawful sexual intercourse.$7
56
Any court to which the cause may be appealed also has the authority to modify the verdict to that of a lesser offense or to impose a lesser punishment.57.1 One exception to this rule, however, is that the California Supreme Court has no authority under Penal Code Section 1181(7) or 1260, on automatic appeal, to reduce a death sentence to life without the possibility of parole,572 although it has authority to reduce the sentence after undertaking intracase proportionality review, if the sentence is disproportionate, as discussed in Chapter 87.
When the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of a greater offense but is sufficient to support convictions for more than one lesser included offense, the trial or appellate court may reduce the conviction to only one of the lesser included offenses, that being the one with the longest prescribed prison term.
57.3
On federal habeas corpus, if the federal court determines that the evidence is insufficient to support a state court conviction of a greater offense but is sufficient to support a lesser included offense, the remedy is for the federal court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus that the sentence for the offense be vacated unless the state court within a certain number of days reduces the greater offense to the lesser included offense.374
If the trial court has reduced the degree of the offense because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the greater offense, the matter may be appealed, and the the reviewing court may disagree and reinstate the verdict. $7.5
A trial court has limited authority under Penal Code Section 1170(d) (now 1170.03)57.6 to recall a sentence and resentence the defendant.$7.7 For further discussion, see Chapter 91, “Sentencing.”
Leave a Reply