People v. Breverman

Two teenage Asian-American boys walked past the house of a White man, Scott Breverman (defendant). A group of young people in the driveway called the boys racial slurs and kicked and beat them. The following night, one of the boys returned with six to 10 teenage Asian-American boys, seeking an even fight. The group taunted Breverman and used a bat and other implements to hit Breverman’s car parked in the driveway. Breverman thought the boys were rushing his door and fired four shots through a window, causing the boys to flee. Breverman, saying he acted in a continuous, chaotic response, went outside and shot 10 more rounds in the direction of the boys, claiming he was not aiming at them, but killing Andreas Suryaatmadja. Breverman was convicted of murder. The jury received instructions on (1) second-degree murder; (2) justifiable homicide (reasonable self-defense); (3) voluntary manslaughter premised on unreasonable self-defense; and (4) involuntary manslaughter, the latter two being lesser necessarily included offenses. Breverman appealed, arguing the trial court failed, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on a heat-of-passion theory of voluntary manslaughter. The appellate court agreed and found the error prejudicial because the jury had not otherwise resolved the heat-of-passion issue. The California Supreme Court granted the state’s review petition.