People v. Nesler
California Supreme Court
16 Cal. 4th 561 (1997)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Daniel Driver allegedly raped seven-year-old W. at a camp where Driver worked. Driver told W. that Driver would kidnap and kill W., W.’s sister, and W.’s mother, Ellena Starr Nesler (defendant), if W. told anyone. After several months, W. told Nesler what Driver had done. Driver was charged with molesting several boys, including W. However, Driver fled and was on the loose for the next several years. While Driver’s location was unknown, W. had difficulties and became suicidal. Nesler had also been raped as a child and had also been suicidal afterward. Driver was eventually apprehended. Nesler and W. were extremely distressed about W. having to face Driver in court. W. was vomiting just before Driver’s preliminary hearing. When Driver arrived for the hearing, he smirked at W. outside the courthouse. Nesler lunged at Driver but was restrained by her sister. In the courthouse hallway, another witness told Nesler that the hearing was not going well and that Driver might go free. Later, when Nesler entered the courtroom, she grabbed a gun from her sister’s purse and shot Driver in the head several times, killing him. Once in custody, Nesler stated that she had not intended to kill Driver that day, but she believed he deserved to die. Nesler stated that she would have killed him when Driver smirked at W. outside the courthouse if she had possessed the gun then. Evidence indicated that Nesler had likely taken large doses of methamphetamines for several days prior. At Nesler’s trial, the court instructed the jury that a person who acts in the heat of passion lacks the malice necessary for the crime of murder but may still commit the crime of voluntary manslaughter. The jury found Nesler not guilty of murder but guilty of voluntary manslaughter. In the trial’s second phase, the jury also found that Nesler was legally sane. Nesler discovered potential misconduct by one of the jurors and moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial. Nesler appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (George, C.J.)
What to do next…
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.
