People?v.?Saille?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1103?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?364;?820?P.2d?588 [No.?S016721.?Dec?12,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MANUEL?DE?JESUS?SAILLE,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Merced?County,?No.?12650,?George?C.?Barrett,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Richard?L.?Phillips,?Mark?E.?Cutler?and?Bradley?A.?Bristow,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Fiedler,?Gardner?&?Derham,?Cliff?Gardner,?Elaine?A.?Alexander,?Martin?Buchanan?and?Madeline?McDowell?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jane?N.?Kirkland,?W.?Scott?Thorpe?and?Janet?Neeley?Kvarme,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. John?J.?Meehan,?District?Attorney?(Oakland),?Thomas?J.?Orloff,?Chief?Assistant?District?Attorney,?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION PANELLI,?J. We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?resolve?a?conflict?among?the?Courts?of?Appeal?regarding?the?impact?of?legislation?abolishing?diminished?capacity?on?the?crime?of?voluntary?manslaughter.?Specifically,?the?issue?is?whether?the?law?of?this?state?still?permits?a?reduction?of?what?would?otherwise?be?murder?to?nonstatutory?voluntary?manslaughter?due?to?voluntary?intoxication?and/or?mental?disorder.fn.?1?In?this?case,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?it?does?not.?After?careful?examination?of?the?relevant?statutes?and?legislative?history,?we?agree. Following?a?retrial,?defendant?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murder?of?Guadalupe?Borba?(Pen.?Code,???187)fn.?2?and?the?attempted?murder?of?David?Ballagh?(???664/187).?His?earlier?conviction?for?these?crimes?was?reversed?[54?Cal.3d?1108]?on?appeal?for?Wheeler?error?(People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748]). Facts On?November?30,?1985,?defendant?started?drinking?at?a?friend’s?house?shortly?before?noon.?He?had?drunk?15?to?18?beers?by?about?6?o’clock?that?evening;?he?then?went?to?a?bar?and?drank?about?3?or?4?more?beers.?He?was?noticeably?drunk?when?he?went?to?Eva’s?Cafe?about?9?p.m.?The?bartender?signalled?the?security?guard,?David?Ballagh,?to?ask?defendant?to?leave.?Ballagh?told?defendant?he?could?not?drink?there?because?he?appeared?intoxicated?and?asked?defendant?to?leave;?defendant?did?so.?Defendant?returned?about?an?hour?later,?but?was?reminded?by?Ballagh?that?he?could?not?come?in.?Defendant?left?but?returned?again?around?11?p.m.?and?was?rebuffed?once?again?by?Ballagh.?As?he?left?he?said?to?Ballagh,?”I’m?going?to?get?a?gun?and?kill?you.” Defendant?went?home?around?1?a.m.,?got?his?rifle?(a?semiautomatic?assault?rifle),?and?returned?to?the?bar.?As?he?entered?the?bar,?defendant?said?to?Ballagh,?”I?told?you?I?would?be?back.”?Ballagh?tried?to?grab?the?rifle;?it?discharged?and?killed?a?patron.?Defendant?was?eventually?subdued?outside?the?bar;?both?he?and?Ballagh?were?shot?during?the?struggle. A?blood?sample?taken?from?defendant?about?two?hours?later?showed?a?blood-?alcohol?level?of?.14?percent.?Expert?testimony?at?trial?established?that?the?level?would?have?been?about?.19?percent?at?the?time?of?the?shooting. Contentions Defendant?contends?the?court’s?instructions?on?the?effect?of?voluntary?intoxication?were?inadequate.?The?court?gave?CALJIC?No.?4.21,?stating?that?voluntary?intoxication?could?be?considered?in?determining?whether?defendant?had?the?specific?intent?to?kill.?The?court?instructed?on?first?and?second?degree?murder?and?voluntary?and?involuntary?manslaughter.?[1a]?It?did?not,?however,?relate?voluntary?intoxication?to?anything?other?than?the?specific?intent?to?kill.?Defendant?contends?the?instructions?were?insufficient?because?they?did?not?tell?the?jury?that?voluntary?intoxication,?like?heat?of?passion?upon?adequate?provocation,?could?negate?express?malice?and?reduce?what?would?otherwise?be?murder?to?voluntary?manslaughter.?Defendant?also?contends?that?the?court?should?have?instructed?sua?sponte?that?the?jury?could?consider?his?voluntary?intoxication?in?determining?whether?he?had?premeditated?and?deliberated?the?murder.?Defendant?further?contends?that?the?instructions?on?involuntary?manslaughter?improperly?required?a?showing?of?unconsciousness.?[54?Cal.3d?1109] In?rejecting?these?contentions,?the?Court?of?Appeal?based?its?reasoning?on?the?legislative?enactments?that?(1)?abolished?diminished?capacity?and?(2)?clarified?the?definition?of?malice?aforethought.?Accordingly,?before?we?can?properly?assess?the?correctness?of?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?interpretation?of?the?legislation,?we?review?the?historical?development?of?the?doctrine?of?diminished?capacity. The?first?step?in?the?development?of?the?diminished?capacity?doctrine?was?taken?in?People?v.?Wells?(1949)?33?Cal.2d?330?[202?P.2d?53].?(See?People?v.?Wetmore?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?318,?323?[149?Cal.Rptr.?265,?583?P.2d?1308].)?In?Wells?the?defendant,?a?life-term?prisoner,?was?charged?with?assault?on?a?prison?guard,?which?was?a?capital?offense?if?done?with?malice?aforethought.?The?defendant?contended?he?did?not?act?with?malice?aforethought?because?he?was?reacting?to?an?honest?but?unreasonable?fear?of?bodily?harm.?He?sought?to?introduce?psychiatric?testimony?at?the?guilt?phase?to?show?that?he?was?suffering?from?an?abnormal?physical?and?mental?condition?that?caused?him?to?fear?for?his?personal?safety?in?response?to?even?slight?external?stimuli.?We?held?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?excluding?the?proffered?evidence.?We?explained:?”Evidence?which?tends?to?show?legal?insanity?…?is?not?admissible?at?the?first?stage?of?the?trial?because?it?is?not?pertinent?to?any?issue?then?being?litigated;?but?competent?evidence,?other?than?proof?of?sanity?or?insanity,?which?tends?to?show?that?a?(then?presumed)?legally?sane?defendant?either?did?or?did?not?in?fact?possess?the?required?specific?intent?or?motive?is?admissible.”?(Wells,?supra,?33?Cal.2d?at?p.?351,?italics?added.) The?next?step?was?taken?in?People?v.?Gorshen?(1959)?51?Cal.2d?716?[336?P.2d?492].?Gorshen,?a?longshoreman,?reported?to?work?intoxicated?and?was?told?by?his?foreman?to?go?home.?After?Gorshen?refused?to?leave,?the?two?men?fought?briefly.?The?fight?ended?when?the?foreman?knocked?Gorshen?to?the?ground.?Gorshen?announced?that?he?was?going?to?go?home,?get?his?gun,?return,?and?kill?the?foreman.?Gorshen?went?home,?cleaned?and?loaded?his?gun,?returned?to?the?docks,?and?killed?the?foreman.?In?addition?to?introducing?evidence?of?his?intoxication,?Gorshen?introduced?psychiatric?testimony?that?he?was?suffering?from?a?mental?disease?at?the?time?of?the?killing.?The?psychiatrist?described?the?effect?of?the?disease?and?concluded?that?Gorshen?did?”?’not?have?the?mental?state?which?is?required?for?malice?aforethought?or?premeditation?or?anything?which?implies?intention,?deliberation?or?premeditation.’?”?(Id.,?at?p.?723.)?The?trial?court?found?Gorshen?guilty?of?second?degree?murder.?The?court?relied?on?the?psychiatrist’s?testimony?to?reduce?the?murder?to?second?degree,?but?found?there?was?malice?aforethought. Citing?People?v.?Wells,?supra,?33?Cal.2d?330,?we?upheld?the?admission?of?the?psychiatric?evidence,?as?it?was?evidence?of?defendant’s?mental?infirmity?[54?Cal.3d?1110]?short?of?insanity?that?tended?to?prove?the?defendant?did?not?have?the?necessary?specific?mental?state?to?commit?first?degree?murder.?(Gorshen,?supra,?51?Cal.2d?at?p.?726.)?In?so?doing,?we?opened?the?door?for?diminished?capacity,?since?we?permitted?expert?evidence?”not?as?a?’complete?defense’?negating?capacity?to?commit?any?crime?but?as?a?’partial?defense’?negating?[a]?specific?mental?state?essential?to?a?particular?crime.”?(Id.,?at?p.?727.)?Moreover,?we?recognized?that?murder?could?be?reduced?to?manslaughter,?not?only?on?the?statutory?basis?of?the?reasonable?person?objective?standard?of?provocation?(??192),?but?also?on?the?subjective?standard?of?defendant’s?voluntary?intoxication?or?mental?impairment.?(51?Cal.2d?at?pp.?731-733.) In?People?v.?Conley?(1966)?64?Cal.2d?310?[49?Cal.Rptr.?815,?411?P.2d?911]?we?applied?the?Gorshen-Wells?principles?to?reverse?the?defendant’s?conviction?of?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder.?The?defendant?shot?and?killed?his?former?girlfriend?and?her?husband.?He?testified?that?he?did?not?intend?to?kill?the?victims?and?that?he?did?not?remember?anything?from?the?time?he?was?drinking?at?his?sister’s?house?until?the?time?of?his?arrest?shortly?after?the?shooting.?His?blood-alcohol?level?was?.21?percent?three?hours?after?the?shooting.?We?held?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?refusing?to?give?voluntary?manslaughter?instructions?based?on?the?defendant’s?diminished?capacity?as?a?result?of?voluntary?intoxication.?We?concluded?that?the?statutory?limitation?of?voluntary?manslaughter?to?homicides?caused?by?adequate?provocation?(??192)?was?not?exclusive:?”[S]ince?the?statute?[??192]?had?been?enacted?before?the?concept?of?diminished?capacity?had?been?developed,?its?enumeration?of?nonmalicious?criminal?homicides?did?not?include?those?in?which?the?lack?of?malice?results?from?diminished?capacity.”?(Conley,?supra,?at?p.?318.)?As?a?result,?malice?aforethought?could?be?negated?by?showing?that?a?person?who?intentionally?killed?was?incapable?of?harboring?malice?aforethought?because?of?a?mental?disease?or?defect?or?intoxication.?(Ibid.)?To?explain?how?diminished?capacity?negated?malice,?we?redefined?and?expanded?the?mental?component?of?malice?aforethought?beyond?that?stated?in?section?188fn.?3?to?include?a?requirement?that?the?defendant?was?able?to?comprehend?the?duty?society?places?on?all?persons?to?act?within?the?law,?i.e.,?that?he?had?an?”awareness?of?the?obligation?to?act?within?the?general?body?of?laws?regulating?society.”?(Id.,?at?p.?322.)?Pursuant?to?this?definition,?we?concluded?that?someone?who?is?unable,?because?of?intoxication?or?mental?illness,?to?comprehend?his?duty?to?govern?his?actions?in?accord?with?the?duty?imposed?by?law,?cannot?act?with?malice?aforethought.?[54?Cal.3d?1111] In?People?v.?Poddar?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?750?[111?Cal.Rptr.?910,?518?P.2d?342]?we?put?the?final?gloss?on?the?definition?of?malice?aforethought.?There,?in?the?context?of?implied?malice,?we?added?the?requirement?that?the?defendant,?even?if?aware?of?his?duty?to?act?in?accordance?with?the?law,?also?be?able?to?act?in?accordance?with?that?duty.?(Id.,?at?p.?758.) Finally,?in?People?v.?Wetmore,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?318,?we?addressed?the?kind?of?evidence?admissible?on?the?issue?of?defendant’s?mental?state.?We?held?that?evidence?which?tended?to?show?a?defendant?could?not?form?the?requisite?mental?state?is?admissible?in?the?guilt?phase?even?though?the?evidence?is?also?probative?of?insanity.?In?so?doing,?we?rejected?dictum?in?People?v.?Wells,?supra,?33?Cal.2d?330,?that?evidence?tending?to?show?lack?of?mental?capacity?to?commit?the?crime?because?of?insanity?was?inadmissible?at?the?guilt?phase?of?trial.?(People?v.?Wetmore,?supra,?22?Cal.2d?at?p.?323.)?We?observed?that?our?holding?would?result?in?the?duplication?of?evidence?presented?at?the?legislatively?mandated?bifurcated?trial?on?guilt?and?insanity.?We?therefore?urged?the?Legislature?to?reconsider?the?wisdom?of?the?statutes?providing?for?bifurcated?trial.?(Id.,?at?p.?331.) In?response?to?our?request,?the?Joint?Committee?for?Revision?of?the?Penal?Code?held?two?public?hearings?on?the?subject?of?psychiatric?evidence?and?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?insanity.?These?hearings?led?to?the?introduction?of?Senate?Bill?No.?54,?1981-1982?Regular?Session,?to?abolish?the?defense?of?diminished?capacity.?(Comment,?Admissibility?of?Psychiatric?Testimony?in?the?Guilt?Phase?of?Bifurcated?Trials:?What’s?Left?After?the?Reforms?of?the?Diminished?Capacity?Defense??(1984)?16?Pacific?L.J.?305,?316-318.)?After?substantial?amendment,?Senate?Bill?No.?54?was?enacted?into?law?in?September?1981.?(Stats.?1981,?ch.?404,?pp.?1591-1592.)fn.?4 Senate?Bill?No.?54?added?to?the?Penal?Code?sections?28?and?29,?which?abolished?diminished?capacity?and?limited?psychiatric?testimony.?It?amended?section?22?on?the?admissibility?of?evidence?of?voluntary?intoxication,?section?188?on?the?definition?of?malice?aforethought,?and?section?189?on?the?definition?of?premeditation?and?deliberation.fn.?5?Other?sections?not?relevant?here?were?also?amended. [2]?Section?28,?subdivision?(a)?provides?in?pertinent?part?that?evidence?of?mental?illness?”shall?not?be?admitted?to?show?or?negate?the?capacity?to?form?[54?Cal.3d?1112]?any?mental?state,”?but?is?”admissible?solely?on?the?issue?of?whether?or?not?the?accused?actually?formed?a?required?specific?intent,?premeditated,?deliberated,?or?harbored?malice?aforethought,?when?a?specific?intent?crime?is?charged.”?(Italics?added.)?Subdivision?(b)?of?section?28?abolishes?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity,?diminished?responsibility,?and?irresistible?impulse?”as?a?matter?of?public?policy.” Section?29?provides?that?any?expert?testifying?in?the?guilt?phase?of?a?criminal?action?”shall?not?testify?as?to?whether?the?defendant?had?or?did?not?have?the?required?mental?states,?which?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?purpose,?intent,?knowledge,?or?malice?aforethought,?for?the?crimes?charged.?The?question?as?to?whether?the?defendant?had?or?did?not?have?the?required?mental?states?shall?be?decided?by?the?trier?of?fact.” Section?22?was?amended?to?reflect?the?abolition?of?diminished?capacity.?It?provides?that?evidence?of?voluntary?intoxication?is?not?admissible?to?negate?the?capacity?to?form?any?mental?state,?but?it?is?admissible?”solely?on?the?issue?of?whether?or?not?the?defendant?actually?formed?a?required?specific?intent,?premeditated,?deliberated,?or?harbored?malice?aforethought,?when?a?specific?intent?crime?is?charged.” A?provision?abolishing?the?defense?of?diminished?capacity?was?also?included?in?the?initiative?measure?adopted?in?June?1982?and?known?as?Proposition?8.?Section?25?was?added?to?the?Penal?Code?as?part?of?Proposition?8.?Subdivision?(a)?of?section?25?provides:?”The?defense?of?diminished?capacity?is?hereby?abolished.?In?a?criminal?action,?as?well?as?any?juvenile?court?proceeding,?evidence?concerning?an?accused?person’s?intoxication,?trauma,?mental?illness,?disease,?or?defect?shall?not?be?admissible?to?show?or?negate?capacity?to?form?the?particular?purpose,?intent,?motive,?malice?aforethought,?knowledge,?or?other?mental?state?required?for?the?commission?of?the?crime?charged.” Although?there?was?initially?some?confusion?about?the?interaction?between?section?25,?subdivision?(a)?and?section?28?(People?v.?Spurlin?(1984)?156?Cal.App.3d?119,?128?[202?Cal.Rptr.?663]),?courts?and?commentators?now?appear?to?agree?that?the?two?sections?are?complementary?and?that?both?statutes?remain?operative.?(See?1?Witkin?&?Epstein,?Cal.?Criminal?Law?(2d?ed.?1988)?Defenses,???211,?pp.?241-243;?People?v.?McCowan?(1986)?182?Cal.App.3d?1,?11-13?[227?Cal.Rptr.?23];?People?v.?Young?(1987)?189?Cal.App.3d?891,?904-905?[234?Cal.Rptr.?819].) Scope?of?Voluntary?Manslaughter [1b]?Defendant?argues?that?the?new?legislation?did?not?limit?the?ability?of?an?accused?to?reduce?an?intentional?killing?to?voluntary?manslaughter?as?a?[54?Cal.3d?1113]?result?of?mental?illness?or?voluntary?intoxication.?He?relies?primarily?on?People?v.?Molina?(1988)?202?Cal.App.3d?1168?[249?Cal.Rptr.?273]. In?Molina,?a?psychotic?mother,?who?was?experiencing?auditory?hallucinations,?strangled?and?killed?her?18-month-old?son?and?set?fire?to?the?house.?The?trial?court?refused?requested?instructions?on?the?lesser?offenses?of?voluntary?and?involuntary?manslaughter.?The?defendant?was?convicted?of?second?degree?murder?and?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity.?The?Court?of?Appeal?reversed. The?Molina?court?reviewed?sections?25,?28,?and?29,?noting?that?the?statutory?language?provides?that?”evidence?of?mental?problems?is?inadmissible?to?show?that?a?defendant?lacked?the?capacity?to?form?the?requisite?mental?state,?but?is?admissible?to?show?that?the?defendant?actually?lacked?the?requisite?mental?state.”?(202?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1173.)?From?this?the?court?concluded:?”The?inclusion?of?the?language?in?subdivision?(a)?[of?section?28]?regarding?actual?formation?of?mental?states?shows?that?the?Legislature?did?not?foreclose?the?possibility?of?a?reduction?from?murder?to?voluntary?manslaughter?where?malice?is?lacking?due?to?mental?illness,?or?a?further?reduction?to?involuntary?manslaughter?where?intent?to?kill?is?not?present?for?the?same?reason.”?(Id.,?at?p.?1174.) We?are?unpersuaded?by?defendant’s?reliance?on?Molina,?supra,?202?Cal.App.3d?1168,?since?the?court’s?analysis?failed?to?consider?the?effect?on?the?definition?of?malice?of?the?amendment?to?section?188,?which?was?part?of?the?same?legislative?package?as?sections?25,?28,?and?29. [3]?Section?188,?as?amended?by?Senate?Bill?No.?54?(see?fn.?5,?ante),?now?provides:?”Such?malice?may?be?express?or?implied.?It?is?express?when?there?is?manifested?a?deliberate?intention?unlawfully?to?take?away?the?life?of?a?fellow?creature.?It?is?implied,?when?no?considerable?provocation?appears,?or?when?the?circumstances?attending?the?killing?show?an?abandoned?and?malignant?heart.?[?]?When?it?is?shown?that?the?killing?resulted?from?the?intentional?doing?of?an?act?with?express?or?implied?malice?as?defined?above,?no?other?mental?state?need?be?shown?to?establish?the?mental?state?of?malice?aforethought.?Neither?an?awareness?of?the?obligation?to?act?within?the?general?body?of?laws?regulating?society?nor?acting?despite?such?awareness?is?included?within?the?definition?of?malice.”?(Italics?added.) The?first?sentence?of?the?underscored?passage?limits?malice?to?the?definition?set?forth?in?section?188.?This?sentence?clearly?provides?that?once?the?trier?of?fact?finds?a?deliberate?intention?unlawfully?to?kill,?no?other?mental?state?need?be?shown?to?establish?malice?aforethought.?Whether?a?defendant?acted?with?a?wanton?disregard?for?human?life?or?with?some?antisocial?motivation?is?[54?Cal.3d?1114]?no?longer?relevant?to?the?issue?of?express?malice.?(People?v.?Stress?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?1259,?1267-1268?[252?Cal.Rptr.?913].)?No?doubt?about?this?conclusion?is?possible?when?the?last?sentence?of?section?188?is?analyzed.?That?sentence?directly?repudiates?the?expanded?definition?of?malice?aforethought?in?People?v.?Conley,?supra,?64?Cal.2d?310,?and?People?v.?Poddar,?supra,?10?Cal.3d?750,?that?express?and?implied?malice?include?an?awareness?of?the?obligation?to?act?within?the?general?body?of?laws?regulating?society?and?the?capability?of?acting?in?accordance?with?such?awareness.?After?this?amendment?of?section?188,?express?malice?and?an?intent?unlawfully?to?kill?are?one?and?the?same.fn.?6?(People?v.?Stress,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1268.) Pursuant?to?the?language?of?section?188,?when?an?intentional?killing?is?shown,?malice?aforethought?is?established.?Accordingly,?the?concept?of?”diminished?capacity?voluntary?manslaughter”?(nonstatutory?manslaughter)?recognized?in?Conley,?supra,?64?Cal.2d?310,?is?no?longer?valid?as?a?defense. However,?while?retreating?from?the?Conley/Poddar?definition?of?malice?aforethought,?the?Legislature?left?unchanged?the?definition?of?voluntary?manslaughter?in?section?192.?Indeed,?that?definition?has?not?changed?since?section?192?was?first?enacted?in?1872.?Section?192?defines?voluntary?manslaughter?as?the?”unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice?…?[?]?…?upon?a?sudden?quarrel?or?heat?of?passion.”?Thus,?pursuant?to?the?language?of?section?188,?when?an?intentional?killing?is?shown,?malice?aforethought?is?established.?Section?192,?however,?negates?malice?when?the?intentional?killing?results?from?a?sudden?quarrel?or?heat?of?passion?induced?by?adequate?provocation. Defendant?disagrees.?Relying?on?the?language?in?section?188?that?requires?for?express?malice?a?”deliberate?intention?unlawfully”?to?take?a?life,?he?argues?that?express?malice?requires?more?than?mere?intent?to?kill.?We?find?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?reasoning?to?the?contrary?in?People?v.?Bobofn.?*(1990)?229?Cal.App.3d?1417,?1440-1441?[271?Cal.Rptr.?277],?persuasive:?”From?the?time?it?was?enacted?in?1872,?section?188?has?stated?that?malice?is?express?’when?there?is?manifested?a?deliberate?intention?unlawfully’?to?kill.?One?might?argue?that?the?word?’deliberate’?has?a?significance?in?the?distinction?between?murder?and?manslaughter.?That?argument?would?be?mistaken.?[54?Cal.3d?1115]?As?noted?in?In?re?Thomas?C.?(1986)?183?Cal.App.3d?786,?796-797?[228?Cal.Rptr.?430]:?’In?People?v.?Valentine?(1946)?28?Cal.2d?121?[169?P.2d?1],?our?Supreme?Court?pointed?out?that?it?was?”incorrect?[to?differentiate]?manslaughter?from?murder?on?the?basis?of?deliberate?intent?….?Deliberate?intent?…?is?not?an?essential?element?of?murder,?as?such.?It?is?an?essential?element?of?one?class?only?of?first?degree?murder?and?is?not?at?all?an?element?of?second?degree?murder.”?(Id.,?at?pp.?131-132;?[citations].)?Indeed,?the?standard?CALJIC?instruction?(No.?8.11?(1983?rev.))?has?been?held?to?be?a?correct?definition?of?express?malice?aforethought,?despite?the?fact?that?it?does?not?use?the?word?”deliberate”?as?used?in?Penal?Code?section?188,?but?merely?states?that?”[m]alice?is?express?when?there?is?manifested?an?intention?unlawfully?to?kill?a?human?being.”?(CALJIC?No.?8.11.)?In?short,?”deliberate?intention,”?as?stated?in?Penal?Code?section?188,?merely?distinguishes?”express”?from?”implied”?malice,?whereas?premeditation?and?deliberation?is?one?class?of?first?degree?murder.’?(See?also?People?v.?Van?Ronk,?supra,?171?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?824.) “Moreover,?as?defined?in?cases?predating?Conley?and?Conley’s?foundational?pillars-People?v.?Wells?(1949)?33?Cal.2d?330,?and?People?v.?Gorshen?(1959)?51?Cal.2d?716-the?concept?of?malice?aforethought?was?manifested?by?the?doing?of?an?unlawful?and?felonious?act?intentionally?and?without?legal?cause?or?excuse.?(People?v.?Balkwell?(1904)?143?Cal.?259,?263?[76?P.?1017];?People?v.?Fallon?(1906)?149?Cal.?287,?289-290?[86?P.?689];?People?v.?Coleman?(1942)?50?Cal.App.2d?592,?596?[123?P.2d?557];?see?also?People?v.?Bender?(1945)?27?Cal.2d?164,?181?[163?P.2d?8].)?The?adjective?’deliberate’?in?section?188?consequently?implies?an?intentional?act?and?is?essentially?redundant?to?the?language?defining?express?malice. “The?adverb?’unlawfully’?in?the?express?malice?definition?means?simply?that?there?is?no?justification,?excuse,?or?mitigation?for?the?killing?recognized?by?the?law.?(People?v.?Stress,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1268.)” [4]?We?still?must?reconcile?the?narrowed?definition?of?malice?aforethought?in?section?188?with?the?language?of?sections?22,?subdivision?(b)?and?28,?subdivision?(a).?These?latter?sections?make?evidence?of?voluntary?intoxication?and?mental?illness?admissible?solely?on?the?issue?of?whether?the?accused?”actually?formed?a?required?specific?intent,?premeditated,?deliberated,?or?harbored?malice?aforethought,?when?a?specific?intent?crime?is?charged.” Molina?had?relied?on?the?reference?to?malice?aforethought?in?section?28,?subdivision?(a)?to?conclude?that?the?Legislature?had?not?foreclosed?the?possibility?of?a?reduction?of?murder?to?voluntary?manslaughter?where?malice?is?lacking?due?to?mental?illness?or?intoxication.?(People?v.?Molina,?supra,?202?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1174.)?As?previously?stated,?however,?the?Molina?analysis?[54?Cal.3d?1116]?did?not?consider?the?effect?of?the?Legislature’s?amendment?of?the?definition?of?malice?in?section?188. As?the?Court?of?Appeal?noted?in?People?v.?Bobo,?supra,?229?Cal.App.3d?at?page?1442,?”section?28,?subdivision?(a),?is?a?general?statute?covering?all?specific?intent?crimes.?Leeway?in?the?language?is?needed?to?ensure?such?coverage.?Moreover,?malice?aforethought?can?be?either?express?or?implied.?Nothing?is?generalized?about?the?definition?of?express?malice?in?section?188?and?no?leeway?in?the?language?is?needed?for?that?precise?definition.?Furthermore,?evidence?of?mental?disease,?disorder,?or?defect?is?still?admissible?on?the?issue?of?whether?the?accused?actually?formed?an?intent?unlawfully?to?kill-i.e.,?whether?the?accused?actually?formed?express?malice.” Sections?22?and?28?state?that?voluntary?intoxication?or?mental?condition?may?be?considered?in?deciding?whether?the?defendant?actually?had?the?required?mental?state,?including?malice.?These?sections?relate?to?any?crime,?and?make?no?attempt?to?define?what?mental?state?is?required.?Section?188,?on?the?other?hand,?defines?malice?for?purposes?of?murder.?In?combination,?the?statutes?provide?that?voluntary?intoxication?or?mental?condition?may?be?considered?in?deciding?whether?there?was?malice?as?defined?in?section?188.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?contention,?we?see?no?conflict?in?these?provisions. [5]?Defendant?further?argues?that?the?Legislature’s?narrowing?of?the?definition?of?express?malice?and?the?resulting?restriction?of?the?scope?of?voluntary?manslaughter?presents?a?due?process?problem.?We?disagree.?The?Legislature?can?limit?the?mental?elements?included?in?the?statutory?definition?of?a?crime?and?thereby?curtail?use?of?mens?rea?defenses.?(See?Patterson?v.?New?York?(1977)?432?U.S.?197,?210-211?[53?L.Ed.2d?281,?292-293,?97?S.Ct.?2319].)?If,?however,?a?crime?requires?a?particular?mental?state?the?Legislature?may?not?deny?a?defendant?the?opportunity?to?prove?he?did?not?possess?that?state.?(Id.,?at?p.?215?[53?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?295].)?The?abolition?of?the?diminished?capacity?defense?and?limitation?of?admissible?evidence?to?actual?formation?of?various?mental?states?has?been?held?not?to?violate?the?due?process?right?to?present?a?defense.?(People?v.?Jackson?(1984)?152?Cal.App.3d?961,?967-970?[199?Cal.Rptr.?848];?People?v.?Lynn?(1984)?159?Cal.App.3d?715,?731-733?[206?Cal.Rptr.?181];?People?v.?Whitler?(1985)?171?Cal.App.3d?337,?340-341?[214?Cal.Rptr.?610].)?If?there?is?no?due?process?impediment?to?the?deletion?of?malice?as?an?element?of?the?crime?of?felony?murder?(People?v.?Dillon?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?441,?472-476?[194?Cal.Rptr.?390,?668?P.2d?697]),?there?is?likewise?no?problem?here.?[1c]?In?amending?section?188?in?1981,?the?Legislature?equated?express?malice?with?an?intent?unlawfully?to?kill.?Since?two?distinct?concepts?no?longer?exist,?there?has?been?some?narrowing?of?the?mental?element?included?in?the?statutory?definition?of?express?malice.?A?defendant,?[54?Cal.3d?1117]?however,?is?still?free?to?show?that?because?of?his?mental?illness?or?voluntary?intoxication,?he?did?not?in?fact?form?the?intent?unlawfully?to?kill?(i.e.,?did?not?have?malice?aforethought).?(People?v.?Jackson,?supra,?152?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?968.)?In?a?murder?case,?if?this?evidence?is?believed,?the?only?supportable?verdict?would?be?involuntary?manslaughter?or?an?acquittal.?If?such?a?showing?gives?rise?to?a?reasonable?doubt,?the?killing?(assuming?there?is?no?implied?malice)?can?be?no?greater?than?involuntary?manslaughter.?(See?People?v.?Bobo,fn.?*?supra,?229?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?1442-?1443.) It?follows?from?the?foregoing?analysis?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?failing?to?instruct?that?voluntary?intoxication?could?negate?express?malice?so?as?to?reduce?a?murder?to?voluntary?manslaughter. Duty?to?Instruct?Sua?Sponte [6a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?failing?to?instruct?sua?sponte?that?the?jury?should?consider?his?voluntary?intoxication?in?determining?whether?he?had?premeditated?and?deliberated?the?murder.?As?previously?mentioned,?the?instructions?given?(CALJIC?No.?4.21)?related?voluntary?intoxication?only?to?the?question?of?whether?defendant?had?the?specific?intent?to?kill. The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?the?abolition?of?the?defense?of?diminished?capacity?had?eliminated?the?need?for?a?sua?sponte?instruction?relating?mental?illness?or?voluntary?intoxication?to?the?required?mental?states.?It?relied?on?the?analysis?set?forth?by?Justice?Sims?in?his?concurring?opinion?in?People?v.?Whitler,?supra,?171?Cal.App.3d?at?pages?342-343:?”These?cases?represent?variations?of?the?familiar?rule?that?a?trial?court?has?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?give?instructions?relating?a?recognized?defense?to?elements?of?a?charged?offense.?(People?v.?Sedeno?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?703,?716.)?…?[T]he?defense?of?diminished?capacity?has?been?abolished.?A?defendant?may?still?defend?against?a?charge?of?homicide?by?presenting?evidence?of?mental?disease?or?defect?sufficient?to?raise?a?reasonable?doubt?that?he?or?she?in?fact?had?the?requisite?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?offense.?[Citation.]?However,?when?a?defendant?presents?evidence?to?attempt?to?negate?or?rebut?the?prosecution’s?proof?of?an?element?of?the?offense,?a?defendant?is?not?presenting?a?special?defense?invoking?sua?sponte?instructional?duties.?While?a?court?may?well?have?a?duty?to?give?a?’pinpoint’?instruction?relating?such?evidence?to?the?elements?of?the?offense?and?to?the?jury’s?duty?to?acquit?if?the?evidence?produces?a?reasonable?doubt,?such?’pinpoint’?instructions?are?not?required?to?be?given?sua?sponte?and?must?be?given?only?upon?request.?[Citations.]”?[54?Cal.3d?1118] […]
