Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

People v. Davis

Supreme Court of California
30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50 (1994)


Maria Flores, who was between 23 and 25 weeks pregnant, went into a store to cash a check. As Flores exited, Davis (defendant) attempted to rob her at gunpoint. When she refused to give him money, Davis shot her in the chest. Flores received life-saving surgery; however, her fetus was stillborn the next day as a direct result of Flores’s blood loss. Davis was charged with assault, robbery, and murdering Flores’s fetus, pursuant to the state’s penal code § 187(a), which provides that “[m]urder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” The statute exempts abortion from its reach. Although § 187(a) does not expressly require a fetus to be viable before the provisions can be applied, the trial court instructed the jury that it must find fetal viability before it can convict for murder. The trial court instructed the jury, based on previous court of appeal decisions, that a fetus is viable when it is possible for it to survive the trauma of birth, although with artificial medical aid. Davis was convicted of murder of a fetus and appealed, arguing that the trial court gave an incorrect viability instruction. The defendant cited United States Supreme Court decisions in the abortion cases to say that § 187(a) cannot apply to a fetus, unless it meets the definition of viability set forth in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): “the point in fetal development when a fetus, if born, would be capable of living normally outside the womb.” The court of appeal ruled against Davis, finding that fetal viability is not a required element of murder under the statute, contrary to prior decisions. However, the court reversed the murder conviction, because applying this new interpretation of § 187(a) to Davis would violate both the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Lucas, J.)

Concurrence (Kennard, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Baxter, J.)

Dissent (Mosk, 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 448,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 448,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial