Imperfect self defense fails when excessive force used
People v. Temple (Cal. Ct. App., May 6, 2025, No. G062781) 2025 WL 1304577, at *1
Summary: A jury found Temple not guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)) but guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder (§ 189, subd. (b)). The jury found to be true the allegations that Temple used a deadly and dangerous weapon—a knife—in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7). Temple was sentenced to a prison term of 16 years to life.
On appeal, Temple argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 225 instead of CALCRIM No. 224. The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 571 (imperfect self-defense) and CALCRIM No. 3428 (consideration of evidence of a mental disease, defect, or disorder). Temple argues those instructions did not inform the jury it could consider evidence of his mental condition in determining whether he acted in imperfect self-defense. The Court of Appeal found that the instructional error was harmless. A claim of imperfect self-defense can be lost if the defendant used more force than was reasonably necessary to repel the attack, failed to take advantage of an opportunity to retreat, or continued using force after the perceived danger no longer existed. Here, the evidence Temple used unreasonable force, failed to retreat, and continued using force after the danger no longer existed was so strong that it is not reasonably probable the jury would have found he acted in imperfect self-defense in absence of the claimed instructional error.