P v. Navarette (5th Dist) Murder Conviction in Mexico Does Not Constitute a "Strike" Under California Law

Mr. Navarette was convicted of various crimes against a female companion.  The trial judge found that Navarette had a prior conviction for murder in Mexico and that this conviction constituted a "strike" and a prior "serious felony" under California law.  Consistent with this finding, the trial court enhanced Navarette's sentence under PC 667(a)(1) and PC 1170.12(c)(1).  Navarette appealed.

The Fifth District reverses the findings that Navarette's Mexican murder conviction constituted a "strike" and a "serious felony", and remands for resentencing.

The issue is whether murder in Mexico includes all the elements of murder in California, and if not, whether the record of conviction demonstrates that all of the elements of a California murder were found in the Mexican murder.  

In Mexico, murder is the [a] illegal deprivation of the life of another; [b] due to an external cause, imputable to a man as a result of his intentional or imprudent act.

In California, murder is when a defendant [1] commits an act that causes the death of another person, and [2] when the defendant acted he acted with malice aforethought, and [3] he killed without lawful excuse or justification.

In the end it is element [3] that carries the day.  In California, the absence of self-defense is an element of the crime; the State must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  In contrast, Mexico places the burden of proving self defense upon the accused, meaning it is not an element of the offense.  Hence, murder in Mexico does not include all the elements of murder in California.

The State points out that the Mexican appeals court found that Navarette failed to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  So, the State argues, even if the absence of self-defense is not an element of Mexican murder, the record here demonstrates such absence is present.

The panel responds that a reviewing court cannot resolve factual disputes at issue in the previous case.  That the Mexican courts found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Navarette acted in self-defense is not tantamount to a finding that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Navarette did not act in self-defense (as required in California).