People v. Lee

Regrettably, we find ourselves compelled once again to reverse a judgment of conviction because of a trial court’s erroneous extemporaneous comment and informal juiy instructions, concerning the accused’s critical defense.

Defendant Lee was charged with murder. He pleaded “not guilty” and “not guilty by reason of insanity.” A theory of the prosecution was that the homicide was premeditated and deliberate. On trial of the issues posed by his not guilty plea, his only defense was that of “diminished capacity.” He was found “guilty of first degree murder,” and “sane,” by a jury and he appeals from the judgment.

As is now well known, under the Wells-Gorshen concept of diminished capacity even though a defendant be legally sane under the recently rejected M’Naghten test, or the now apposite American Law Institute criteria (see People v. Drew, 22 Cal.3d 333 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 275 , 583 P.2d 1318 ]), if he suffers from a mental illness that prevents him from acting with malice he may not be convicted of murder, and if so prevented from acting with premeditation or deliberation, he may not under that theory be found guilty of murder, first degree. (People v. Henderson, 60 Cal.2d…