627. Hallucination: Effect on Premeditation

A hallucination is a perception not based on objective reality. In other words, a person has a hallucination when that person believes that he or she is seeing or hearing [or otherwise perceiving] something that is not actually present or happening.

You may consider evidence of hallucinations, if any, in deciding whether the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of first degree murder.

Bench Notes

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give defense instructions supported by substantial evidence and not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case. (See People v. Baker (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 803]; People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569, 906 P.2d 531].)

"[E]vidence of a hallucination—a perception with no objective reality—is inadmissible to negate malice so as to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter but is admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder." (People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 889].)

Authority

Hallucination Evidence. People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 889].

Secondary Sources

3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73, Defenses and Justifications, § 73.03 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person, § 142.01[1][g] (Matthew Bender).

(New January 2006)