The Murder Doctrine Of The California Law Essay

1584 Words7 Pages
The provocative murder doctrine likely does not apply to Pim’s killing.
Under the California law, “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Penal Code §187. According to the provocative murder doctrine, the defendant is guilty of murder when he or she, or his or her accomplice “intentionally commits an act that is likely to cause death, and his [or her] victim or a police officer kills in reasonable response to such act.” People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal. 2d 690, 704 (1965). In such a case, evidence must show that the defendant acted with implied malice which led to a reasonable and foreseeable lethal response. Id. at 705. Malice is implied when an act involves a high degree of probability of killing, and initiating a gun battle may constitute such an act. Id. at 704.
A. Yamaguchi’s conduct was not sufficient to constitute provocation.
The key issue presented in this case is “whether the conduct of a defendant or his accomplices was sufficiently provocative of lethal resistance to support a finding of implied malice.” Taylor v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 3 Cal. 3d 578, 583 (1970). One court deemed defendant’s acts as sufficiently provocative because “far beyond committing a simple armed robbery, defendant taunted, terrorized, and toyed with the victims for an extended period of time.” People v. Baker-Riley, 207 Cal. App. 4th 631, 638 (2012). Another court convicted defendant “because [he] planned, directed, and supervised
Get Access