People v. Brown
California Court of Appeal
6 Cal.App.4th 1489 (1992)
- Written by Nathan Benedict, JD
Facts
Johnnie Brown (defendant) contracted with Jason Neal for Neal to lay a brick flower bed at Brown’s home. Brown was dissatisfied with the quality of Neal’s work, leading to an argument. Brown told Neal that he was fired and went back inside his house. Neal started knocking over the flower bed with a hammer. Neal testified that the next thing that happened was hearing a gunshot from inside the house. Brown testified that when he saw Neal destroying the flower bed, he opened the screen door and shouted for Neal to stop. Brown saw Neal approach him swinging the hammer. Brown tried to reenter the house and close the screen door. Brown could not shut the wooden door without letting go of the screen door, which he believed would fly open due to a hydraulic problem. While holding the screen door handle closed with one hand, Brown picked up a shotgun and shot Neal in the leg. Neal was on Brown’s unfenced front porch, approximately five feet from the door. Brown was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. At trial, Brown requested a jury instruction pursuant to California Penal Code 198.5, which creates a rebuttable presumption that deadly force is appropriate when used against an unlawful and forcible intruder into a residence. The trial court denied the instruction, holding that Neal had not entered the residence. Brown was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 953,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,400 briefs, keyed to 1,005 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
