## Facts

- Merle Francis Washington shot and killed Owen Wilson Brady on August 10, 1974, while the two were riding in Brady’s car.
- Washington and Brady were in an intimate relationship; Washington claimed the shooting followed a quarrel triggered by Brady’s unfaithfulness and stated intent to end the relationship.
- A jury convicted Washington of second-degree murder under California Penal Code § 187 and found a firearm-use allegation true.
- Washington argued at trial and on appeal that the killing occurred in heat of passion, warranting voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
- On appeal, Washington challenged (1) the definition of express malice in the murder instructions and (2) the objective “ordinary reasonable person” standard used in the heat-of-passion instructions; he also asserted ineffective assistance of counsel tied to instructional omissions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error by defining express malice without including the word “deliberate,” despite Penal Code § 188’s reference to a “deliberate intention unlawfully to take away” life.
2. Whether heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter requires a defendant-specific standard (accounting for Washington’s personal characteristics, including homosexuality) rather than an objective “ordinary reasonable person” standard.
3. Whether any instructional shortcomings or counsel’s performance required reversal or reduction of the conviction to voluntary manslaughter.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction for second-degree murder and the firearm-use finding.
- The omission of “deliberate” from the express-malice definition in one instruction was not reversible error when the charge, read as a whole, adequately required malice aforethought for murder and distinguished murder from heat-of-passion manslaughter.
- The court rejected a defendant-specific heat-of-passion standard and held the correct test remains objective: adequate provocation is measured by its effect on an ordinarily reasonable person of average disposition (ordinary self-control), not the particular defendant’s temperament or personal characteristics.
- The court found no basis for reversal or reduction based on ineffective assistance or additional unrequested instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Murder requires an unlawful killing with malice aforethought; voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
- Express malice concerns an intent unlawfully to kill; an isolated imprecision in wording is not reversible if the instructions as a whole correctly convey the required mental state and the distinction between murder and manslaughter.
- Heat-of-passion mitigation is governed by an objective standard: the provocation must be sufficient to arouse such passion in an ordinarily reasonable person under the circumstances.
- A defendant may not justify or reduce culpability by substituting a personal standard of self-control based on individual traits; subjective characteristics do not alter the legal benchmark for adequate provocation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Washington’s second-degree murder conviction, concluding that the jury instructions, considered in their entirety, adequately required malice for murder and that heat-of-passion mitigation depends on an objective reasonable-person test rather than a defendant-specific standard.


People v. Washington, 58 Cal. App. 3d 620, 130 Cal. Rptr. 96 (Ct. App. 1976)