People v. Flannel

In People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, the California Supreme Court concluded that imperfect self-defense negated malice aforethought required for murder because the need to act to avoid peril is inconsistent with such malice. Thus, a defendant who kills another based on such a belief cannot be convicted of murder, but only manslaughter. ( Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 674-680.) It nonetheless concluded: "Given the undeveloped state of the unreasonable belief rule, we cannot impose upon the instant trial court so formidable a duty as to conceive and concoct an instruction embodying that rule. 'The duty of the trial court involves percipience -- not omniscience.' " ( Id. at p. 683.) The Supreme Court stated that only after it announced its decision in Flannel would trial courts be informed of the necessity of giving the imperfect self-defense instruction in murder cases. (Ibid.)