P v. Ocegueda (6th Dist.) Trial Court Erred In Instructing Jury It Couldn't Consider Mental Health Evidence In Determining Whether Defendant Acted With Malice

At a New Year's Eve party, Mr. Ocegueda thrice shot another reveler.  Ocegueda claimed he shot the victim because he believed the victim was reaching into his coat for a "strap" (gun).  Other party-goers testified the victim had done nothing to provoke Ocegueda prior to the shooting.  Ocegueda was charged with and convicted of, among other crimes, attempted murder. He appealed.

The Sixth District affirms, finding error, but deeming it harmless.

In the published portion of the opinion, the panel finds the trial court erred in instructing the jury on for what it could consider evidence of Ocegueda's mental health.  Ocegueda had presented evidence he was mildly retarded, with an IQ between 65 and 74.  His mental health expert opined that Ocegueda had a limited capacity for reasoning and functioned as a 13 year-old.  

The trial court instructed the jury that it could only consider the mental health evidence in determining whether or not Oceguenda had formed the required specific intent for the crime of attempted murder.  This was a misstatement of the law.  Mental health evidence may also be used to determine whether or Oceguenda acted with malice.  A subjective, honest, belief in the need for self defense, even when objectively unreasonable, negates malice and reduces an unlawful attempted killing from attempted murder to attempted voluntary manslaughter.  The court gave the attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction, but then erroneously told the jury they could not consider the mental health evidence in deciding whether Oceguenda had an honest belief that the victim was about to pull a gun on him.  

The panel's next step is questionable.  Having determined the given instructions misstated the law, the panel finds the error was not prejudicial.  The main reason given for this is that only Oceguenda testified that the victim looked as though he was about to pull a gun.  The remaining witnesses did not.  Therefore, the panel concludes, it is not reasonably probable the jury would have returned a more favorable verdict had it been correctly instructed.  This reasoning suffers from a logical flaw.  Voluntary manslaughter assumes the defendant's belief in the need for self defense is objectively unreasonable.  The question at issue is whether the defendant's unreasonably held belief in the need for self defense was honest.  That objective observers, the other witnesses, testified they saw nothing justifying Oceguneda's use of force is beside the point, and assumed by the instruction.  The real issue is whether Oceguenda honestly believed he needed to defend himself from the victim.  Thus, saying that erroneously telling the jury it could not consider Oceguenda's limited mental capacity in determining this issue was harmless seems result diven, IMEO.