## Facts

- Huey P. Newton was charged with murder of Officer John Frey, assault with a deadly weapon on Officer Herbert Heanes (knowing he was a peace officer), and kidnapping, arising from an early-morning roadside encounter on October 28, 1967, in Oakland.
- During the encounter, Officer Frey was fatally shot; Officer Heanes and Newton were wounded.
- The prosecution’s evidence (including an eyewitness) supported a theory that Newton produced a concealed gun, shot Heanes, and then shot Frey multiple times.
- Newton testified he was not armed and claimed that after being struck and shot in the abdomen he experienced a sudden loss of awareness, recalling only fragmentary sensations and “vague gunfire” before later regaining awareness at a hospital.
- A physician testified Newton’s account was medically consistent with a reflex-shock reaction to an abdominal gunshot wound that can cause brief periods of unconsciousness.
- At trial, the court dismissed the kidnapping count after the prosecution rested; the jury acquitted Newton of the assault count but convicted him of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder, and found a prior felony conviction allegation true.
- The trial court instructed on diminished capacity but did not instruct on unconsciousness as a defense; the court denied post-trial motions and sentenced Newton to prison.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on involuntary unconsciousness as a complete defense to homicide where substantial evidence supported the theory.
2. Whether the court’s duty to instruct on defenses supported by the evidence applies even if defense counsel did not request, or appeared to withdraw, the instruction.
3. Whether diminished-capacity instructions can substitute for an unconsciousness instruction when unconsciousness would negate the voluntary-act requirement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide when the defendant’s bodily movements occur without conscious awareness.
- The court held that, when substantial evidence supports unconsciousness, the trial court must instruct on the defense on its own motion, regardless of defense counsel’s actions.
- The court concluded the omission was prejudicial because the missing instruction removed a complete defense from the jury’s consideration.

## Legal Principles

- “Unconsciousness” in criminal law can exist where a person physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting.
- Involuntary unconsciousness, if found by the trier of fact, is a complete defense to criminal homicide because it negates the voluntary-act requirement.
- Trial courts have an affirmative duty to instruct on all material issues and defenses supported by substantial evidence, even without a request and despite an apparent withdrawal by counsel.
- Diminished capacity addresses the ability to form the required mental state; unconsciousness addresses whether the charged conduct was a voluntary act, and the two are not interchangeable.
- Failure to instruct on a supported complete defense is prejudicial error when there is a reasonable probability the result could have been different with a proper instruction.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because evidence supported a finding that Newton may have been involuntarily unconscious during the shooting, and the trial court’s failure to instruct on unconsciousness—distinct from diminished capacity—prevented the jury from considering a complete defense.


People v. Newton, 8 Cal. App. 3d 359 (Ct. App. 1970)