## Facts

- Abimael Flores Najera argued with the victim during a heated confrontation.
- During the exchange, the victim used a derogatory slur directed at Najera’s sexual orientation.
- Najera stabbed the victim once in the chest; the victim died about nine hours later.
- Najera was charged with first-degree murder.
- The jury was instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter based on sudden quarrel/heat of passion.
- In closing argument, the prosecutor repeatedly framed the manslaughter inquiry as whether the provocation would cause a reasonable person to kill.
- The jury acquitted Najera of first-degree murder and convicted him of second-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the objective “reasonable person” component of heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter during closing argument.
2. Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s misstatement.
3. Whether the conviction should be reduced from second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.

## Decision

- The court held the prosecutor misstated the law by focusing on whether a reasonable person would kill, rather than whether the provocation would cause an ordinary person to act rashly and without due deliberation.
- The court concluded the misstatement was not prejudicial because the jury received correct instructions and was presumed to follow them.
- The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice under Strickland.
- The court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction and declined to reduce it to voluntary manslaughter.

## Legal Principles

- Heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter requires provocation sufficient to cause an ordinary person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation and reflection; the inquiry focuses on the provocation, not on whether a reasonable person would commit homicide.
- Counsel’s argument that misstates the governing standard can constitute prosecutorial error, but reversal requires a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled and prejudice is shown.
- Correct jury instructions generally cure erroneous legal statements in argument absent a reasonable probability the verdict was affected.
- Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice; failure to object does not warrant relief without a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that the prosecutor inaccurately argued the heat-of-passion “reasonable person” test, but held the error harmless in light of correct instructions and the record as a whole, and it affirmed Najera’s second-degree murder conviction.


People v. Najera, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)