People v. Borchers

4 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. BELTRAN

    Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed May 18, 2011

    (Respondent’s Petition, p. 11.) Case law has long defined the type of triggering events which are adequate which have been heldto constitute legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter provocation (See, People v. Brooks (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 687 [the murder of a family member]; People v. Elmore (1914) 167 Cal. 205, 211 [a sudden and violent quarrel]; People v. Berry (1976) 18 Cal.3d 509, 515 [infidelity of wife]; People v. Borchers (1958) 50 Cal.2d 321 [infidelity of paramour] and those whichare not, such as simple trespass or simple assault. (See People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684-685; | Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law, (2d ed. 1988) Crimes Against the Person, § 513, pp. 580-581.)

  2. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 18, 2005

    Second, the Court emphasized that, contrary to the Attorney General’sposition, “provocation”did, in fact, immediately precede the killing. Given the nature of the past provocation, the Court reasoned, its final culmination was achieved when the defendant’s wife “began screaming” immediately before he killed her. (Id. at p. 515; accord People v. Borchers, supra, 50 Cal.2d at pp. 528-529 [series of provocative acts, including paramour’s admissionsofinfidelity, taunts, and threats of suicide amounted to adequate provocation]; People v. Bridgehouse, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 408-414 [series ofprovocative acts, beginning with wife’s revelation of infidelity and ending in defendant’s unexpected encounter ofher paramour several monthslater sufficient as a matter of law to establish killing committed in reasonable heat ofpassion].) . 2. “Provocation” does not necessarily have to come from the victim killed so long as an act or event would provoke a 68 reasonable person into a heatof passion directed at the victim.

  3. PEOPLE v. POWELL

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed November 27, 2013

    Loverinfidelity is the classic heat of passion situation. (People v. Berry (1976) 18 Cal.3d 509, 513-516; see also People v. Borchers (1958) 50 Cal.2d 321, 329 ) Suppose a husband comes hometo find his wife in bed with another man. Husband goesto his dresser and pulls out a revolver. A struggle ensues between lover and husband as evidenced by defensive wounds.

  4. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Respondent's Brief

    Filed March 10, 2006

    Somehelp can be foundin the case law’s application ofthe generalized rule to particular facts. Acts that arouse great fear, anger, or jealousy (People v. Logan, supra, 175 Cal. at p. 49), or words sometimes (People v. Berry, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 515; People v. Valentine, supra, 28 Cal.2d at p. 144), can constitute adequate provocation. However, verbal provocation mustat least amount to taunting and, evidently, must be accompanied by previously provocative conduct, such as the adultery in People v. Berry, supra, 16 Cal.3d at page 515, and People v. Borchers (1958) 50 Cal.2d 321, 329. Smirking, “dirty” looks, unspecified name-calling, and an invitation to “pull over” in one’s car—presumably for a confrontation or fight—are insufficient.