Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

People v. Berry

556 P.2d 777, 18 Cal. 3d 509 (1976)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

People v. Berry

Supreme Court of California

556 P.2d 777, 18 Cal. 3d 509 (1976)

Play video

Facts

Albert Berry (defendant) and Rachel Pessah were married in May 1974. Three days after their marriage, Rachel traveled alone to her home country of Israel. Rachel returned on July 13. Upon her return, Rachel announced to Albert that she had fallen in love with another man, he was coming to America to retrieve her, and she wanted a divorce. Over the ensuing two weeks, Rachel alternated between taunting Albert with her involvement with the other man and expressing her desire to remain with Albert. During one disagreement, Albert choked Rachel. She responded by deeply scratching him. The two continued to live together. On July 22, Rachel initially told Albert that she wanted to engage in sexual intercourse with him, but then said she was saving herself for the other man. When Albert prepared to leave the apartment, Rachel began yelling at him. Albert then choked Rachel into unconsciousness. Rachel was hospitalized, and Albert spent the next several nights away from the apartment. On July 25, Rachel informed Albert that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. Albert returned to the apartment to talk to Rachel, but she was not there. Albert spent that night alone in the apartment. On July 26, Rachel returned to the apartment. Upon seeing Albert, Rachel said, “I suppose you came here to kill me.” Albert responded with “yes,” then “no,” then “yes” again, before finally saying, “I have really come to talk to you.” Rachel began screaming. Albert grabbed her by the shoulder to stop her from screaming. They struggled, and Albert strangled Rachel. The next day, police found Rachel dead. Albert was arrested and confessed to the killing. At trial, Albert testified that he was provoked into killing Rachel because of a sudden and uncontrollable rage. At trial, a psychiatrist testified that Rachel suffered from suicidal impulses and that these impulses led her to provoke Albert into killing her. The psychiatrist stated that as a result of this provocation, Albert was in a state of uncontrollable rage at the time of the killing. The jury found Albert guilty of first-degree murder. Albert appealed the conviction. Albert stated that there was sufficient evidence to show that he committed the killing while in the heat of passion, thus entitling him to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The Supreme Court of California heard the appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership