People v. Mills

55 Cal. 4th 663, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 833 (2012)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

People v. Mills

California Supreme Court
55 Cal. 4th 663, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 833 (2012)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

Ahkin Ramond Mills (defendant) repeatedly approached Jason Jackson-Andrade at a train station to curse at him and ask him whether he had a gun and wanted to kill him. Eventually, when Jackson-Andrade looked at Mills, Mills said, “Well, if you ain’t got no motherfucking gun, I do,” pulled a gun from his pocket, and shot Jackson-Andrade seven times while Jackson-Andrade tried to crawl away. Jackson-Arande died at the scene. Mills pleaded both not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to Jackson-Andrade’s murder. During the guilt phase of trial, Mills presented an imperfect self-defense claim, arguing that Mills should be guilty only of manslaughter because he held a good-faith, unreasonable belief that Jackson-Andrade presented an imminent threat. Mills testified that he believed that Jackson-Andrade was angry, threatening to kill him, and reaching for a gun in his pocket. Mills’s wife and cousin testified that Mills believed people were after him, radio commercials were speaking to him, and the FBI was following him in a FedEx truck. An expert psychologist testified that Mills had a delusional disorder that caused Mills to grow hypervigilant and misinterpret events as threatening. The trial court gave a jury instruction that conclusively presumed that Mills was sane at the time of the offense. The jury convicted Mills of first-degree murder. At the sanity phase of trial, the jury found that Mills was sane during the murder. Mills was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. Mills appealed, arguing that the jury instruction improperly required the jury to presume the existence of a mental state that the government (plaintiff) was required to prove and brought the irrelevant issue of Mills’s sanity into the trial’s guilt phase. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, and Mills again appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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