P. v. To
A jury convicted defendant Mandy Hoyen To of the second degree murder of Mauson Luong and found that she used a deadly weapon (a knife) to commit the crime. This appeal raises two separate contentions. The first concerns instructional error. Primarily, defendant urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied her request to instruct about self-defense, imperfect self-defense, involuntary manslaughter and accident. Secondarily, defendant urges that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary manslaughter based upon a killing committed in the heat of passion. We find that the contention of instructional error is well-taken because the record contains substantial evidence to support the underlying theories. Further, none of the issues covered by the rejected instructions was raised by the submitted instructions. Consequently, we cannot find that the jury, in convicting defendant of second degree murder, necessarily resolved the factual questions posed by the rejected instructions adversely to her. Instead, we conclude the instructional error was prejudicial because it is reasonably probable that the jury would have rendered a verdict more favorable to defendant had it been properly instructed. Court therefore reverse for retrial. Our disposition renders it unnecessary to discuss defendants second contention of prosecutorial misconduct.
Comments on P. v. To