Californians, and all persons concerned about legislative injustices,

We need your help. We need your name on this extremely important petition to save your life, and the lives of your loved ones, as murder continues to be legalized in California when protected by unclear laws.

In light of the attention paid to the Florida Stand Your Ground Law, and in an effort to preempt civil rights infringement as it pertains to invoking lawful self-defense when needed, we have examined our state's own self-defense laws, and have found many dangerous loopholes that endanger the lives of all persons.

There are two specific Doctrines that we are seeking an internal review of by our California Legislature: The Castle Doctrine, and The Provocative Act Murder Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine allows each citizen to protect his or herself when inside of his or her home, against another party if the resident  assumes that he/she is in imminent, life threatening danger due a person entering into, or already inside of their home. When analyzed, the Castle Doctrine disproportionately criminalizes the non-resident, assuming that they are threatening to the life of the resident, and allows for deadly force to be used based off of the resident's subjective perception or contrived reasoning. In cases where the resident fatally wounds the other party, this doctrine places the burden of proof on the deceased, and validates assumptions of criminal intent.

The Provocative Act Murder Doctrine is a little known part of Second Degree Homicide. It is often used when persons in a group presumed to be felony criminals encounter police during a felony act (felony acts are wide ranging in definition, and not always of a violent nature), officers (or an armed citizen) pursue them, and one or more are shot during the encounter. If one or more of them expires, it allows the survivor(s) to be charged with murder for provoking the killing when they have not used the weapon responsible for the fatal injury. They are charged with murder without even firing the weapon used. Anyone can attempt to invoke this law to justify a killing, and it allows for the avoidance of accountability. The burden of proof is often placed on the deceased individual to prove that the preliminary actions did not warrant his or her killing. This, again, works to absolve the shooter of responsibility.

California's evidence codes discuss burden of proof. Two codes relevant to the importance of including contextualized (historical) evidence are explained below.

Per Evidence Code 405: With respect to preliminary fact determinations not governed by Section 403 or 404: (a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, the court shall indicate which party has the burden of producing evidence and the burden of proof on the issue as implied by the rule of law under which the question arises. The court shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the preliminary fact and shall admit or exclude the proffered evidence as required by the rule of law under which the question arises. (b) If a preliminary fact is also a fact in issue in the action: (1) The jury shall not be informed of the court's determination as to the existence or nonexistence of the preliminary fact. (2) If the proffered evidence is admitted, the jury shall not be instructed to disregard the evidence if its determination of the fact differs from the court's determination of the preliminary fact.

This is problematic because it assumes that, in cases where the use of self-defense is claimed, both parties are available to receive the charge to produce and subsequently prove their evidence. However, when one party has been fatally wounded, the burden of proof then falls primarily on the state to absolve the deceased of the provocation of his or her own expiration, which almost always relies on hearsay. The burden of proof should be placed more so on the defendant to prove just cause beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as safe and legal firearm practices.

Per Evidence Code 402: (a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article. (b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury; but in a criminal action, the court shall hear and determine the question of the admissibility of a confession or admission of the defendant out of the presence and hearing of the jury if any party so requests. (c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute.

These details allow for the exclusion of pertinent evidence that could show causation and provocation. In cases where the defendant claims self-defense, when said person's historical information is discussed in court, the jury is often excused. Without the jury being privy to the relevance of such information, context is more difficult to examine, and the burden of proof remains on the state to validate or invalidate the isolation of the incident.

In conclusion, we are requesting an internal review of the Castle Doctrine, and the Provocative Act Murder Doctrine. As they are written and invoked at this time, they compromise civil rights, and rely on preexisting narratives that often cause recklessness and "kill at will" behaviors. In addition, the racial disparities documented when the Doctrines are used successfully are striking and cannot be ignored. These Doctrines justify violent crime as a first resort and need to be reviewed and amended. This is our request.

Sincerely,
Tiffany Hobbs
Donzell Hayes
Mark Coston
Kia Richards
Chantel Vaultz
Connie Hobbs