People v. Soto
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtChin, J.
*970 A conviction of murder requires a finding of malice, which may be either express or implied. ( Pen. Code, §§ 187, 188.) 1 Express malice requires an intent to kill "unlawfully," but implied malice does not. ( § 188.) By statute, evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible on the issue of whether the defendant "harbored express malice." (§ 29.4. subd. (b).) We have held that if a person kills in the actual but unreasonable belief that doing so is necessary, the person does not intend to kill "unlawfully," and is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder. ( In re Christian S. (1994) 7…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Arizona v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Montana v. EgelhoffSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. GentileCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- People v. Warren, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. FrancoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- People v. Jones, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. Berg, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.