Skip to content
Name: Prejudice
Summary

In the Court of Appeal’s original opinion, it accepted the People’s concession that appellant’s gang enhancements required reversal pursuant to People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951. However, although the trial court erred in failing to instruct on imperfect self-defense, the error was harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. Appellant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, arguing the error in failing to instruct on imperfect self-defense should be reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard articulated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18. The state high court granted review and ultimately transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Ca1.5th 237. The Court of Appeal subsequently held that the failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and appellant’s convictions must be reversed. Additionally, it once again accepted the People’s concession that the findings on the gang enhancements must be vacated and retrial of the enhancements prohibited, inasmuch as there was not substantial evidence to support the enhancements under the standard articulated in Renteria, supra, 13 Cal.5th 951.