People v. Breverman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

People v. Breverman | 960 P.2d 1094 (1998)

In People versus Breverman , we’ll see whether courts have a duty to instruct juries sua sponte on lesser included offenses.

One night, Yoon Ju and Hyun Kim walked by Scott Breverman’s house. A group of people in Breverman’s garage shouted racial slurs at Ju and Kim. A fight broke out, and the group kicked and beat Ju and Kim until they left Breverman’s property.

The next night, Ju and Kim returned to Breverman’s property with 6 to 10 friends. Ju, Kim, and their friends had a baseball bat and other weapons. The group began hitting Breverman’s car with the bat, and Breverman believed that the group was rushing toward his house. Breverman feared that he would be killed, so he got his gun and began firing shots from his house. Breverman later told police that he was shooting downward and was acting in a quote, “continuous, chaotic response,” unquote. Police later found evidence suggesting that Breverman had been shooting at a level angle. Breverman shot and killed Andreas Suryaatmadja, one of Ju and Kim’s friends, at the scene.

The State of California charged Breverman with murder. At the end of the trial, the court gave the jury instructions on second-degree murder and manslaughter, including voluntary manslaughter, as a lesser offense necessarily included within the offense of murder. The court gave its voluntary manslaughter instructions based on the doctrine of imperfect self-defense but not based on a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. The trial court jury convicted Breverman of second-degree murder.

Breverman appealed, claiming that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte, or on the court’s own motion, on the heat-of-passion theory of voluntary manslaughter. The court of appeals found that any evidence Breverman may have presented for fear of harm would also be permitted for a claim of heat-of-passion manslaughter. Because the jury didn’t resolve the heat-of-passion issue, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s error was prejudicial and reversed Breverman’s conviction. The state appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries