People v. Johnson

Introduction

In People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ] (Blakeley) and People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 441 , 999 P.2d 666 ] (Lasko), the California Supreme Court held that voluntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill: Voluntary manslaughter is also committed when one kills unlawfully and with conscious disregard for life, but lacks malice because of provocation or imperfect self-defense. (Blakeley, at pp. 90-91 [provocation]; Lasko , at pp. 108-110 [unreasonable self-defense]; see People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 461, fn. 7 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 512 , 2 P.3d 1066 ].)

Because Lasko does not “establish a new rule of law” but rather “gives ‘effect to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued . . .’ [citation]” (People v. Crowe (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 86, 94-95 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 ] (Crowe)), Lasko applies whether the alleged criminal conduct occurred before or after its June 2, 2000 date of decision. (Ibid.) Regardless of the date of the offense, it is error to instruct the jury that voluntary manslaughter requires a finding that “ ‘[t]he killing was done with the intent to kill.’…