People v. Kruzik CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 9/3/14 P. v. Kruzik CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065945
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. FMB1000476)
JOSHUA ALAN KRUZIK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette and Julie L. Garland,
Assistant Attorneys General, Charles C. Ragland and Kimberley A. Donohue, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael B. McPartland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted Joshua Alan Kruzik of one count of second degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and one count of assault on a child with force likely to
produce great bodily injury resulting in death (§ 273ab; count 2). The court sentenced
Kruzik to 25 years to life on count 2, and stayed under section 654 the 15 year-to-life
term on count 1. Kruzik contends the court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the
jury that if it was convinced he was guilty of homicide, but had a reasonable doubt about
whether the crime was murder or manslaughter, it had to give him the benefit of the
doubt and return a verdict finding him guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. We
conclude the court adequately instructed the jury on application of the reasonable doubt
standard in determining whether Kruzik committed murder or manslaughter.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution Evidence
On November 19, 2010, Timothy Allen and Melissa Marnell asked Kruzik to
babysit their 19-month-old daughter, A.A., while they went to a tattoo parlor. Kruzik
planned to stay at Allen and Marnell's home for two nights before leaving town.
At approximately 10:00 that evening, Kruzik went to Allen and Marnell's house to
babysit A.A., who was already asleep in her crib. Allen knew Kruzik had had at least one
or two drinks but did not believe him to be drunk or very intoxicated and felt comfortable
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2
leaving him with A.A. He told Kruzik to call him and Marnell if any issues arose, and
left.
Allen and Marnell returned home the next morning at about 12:30 a.m. and woke
Kruzik up from their bed, telling him to go sleep on the couch. At about 9:00 a.m., Allen
checked on A.A. and saw that she appeared to be sleeping. He checked on A.A. an hour
later, this time approaching her crib. A.A. did not appear to be breathing, was very cold,
and her face was visibly blue and bruised. Allen yelled for Kruzik to call 911 and, with
the instructions of the 911 operator, Kruzik performed CPR on A.A.
Shortly after the 911 call, paramedics arrived and took over A.A.'s medical care.
They noted she had no pulse, was not breathing, and was "gray ash" in color as she was
being transported to a hospital. A.A. died on November 21, 2010.
An autopsy of A.A.'s body revealed evidence of three impacts to the head: one on
the top of her head, one to the side of her head, and one to her right forehead. The
forensic pathologist opined that A.A.'s death was a homicide caused by blunt force
trauma to the head. A.A. exhibited signs of brain swelling, subdural hemorrhaging, and
retinal hemorrhaging. She also had an abdomen injury that the forensic pathologist
believed was likely caused by a blow.
At trial, the People introduced audio recordings of several interviews of Kruzik,
including one conducted on December 1, 2010, by a sergeant from the San Bernardino
County's Sheriff's Department in the presence of a Naval special agent. During this
interview, Kruzik explained that his friend gave him a ride to Allen and Marnell's house
at approximately 10:30 p.m. on the night of the incident. Kruzik then spoke briefly with
3
Allen before he left. Later that evening, A.A. started crying, which led Kruzik to wake
up. While trying to calm her down, Kruzik was holding A.A. and "stumble[d] over . . . a
big pile of toys . . . [and] fell right on her." He said she stopped crying instantly. He
claimed A.A.'s eyes became "puffy" and that "she had blood in her lip and in her nose."
He noted that she was still breathing. He tried to wake A.A. by shaking her, smacking
the side of her head, putting his hand over her mouth and nose, choking off her airway to
get her to gag, and trying to force her to throw up. When all of his attempts failed, he
laid her back in her crib and fell asleep in Allen and Marnell's bed.
Kruzik told the sergeant that he consumed alcohol at a bar before arriving at Allen
and Marnell's house. In total, he drank eight 16-ounce beers, some Goldschläger, and a
shot of bourbon. After the sergeant expressed his doubts regarding Kruzik's story that he
fell onto A.A., Kruzik admitted he was getting mad when she would not take toys or
drink water, and he struck A.A. on her head four or five times. He explained that she fell
to the ground after each blow and he propped her back up.
Defense Evidence
Kruzik testified in his defense mostly consistently with his interview. He testified
that on the night of November 19, 2010, when he left the bar, he felt intoxicated because
his "balance was off" and "vision was shaky at best." At approximately 10:30 p.m., when
he got to Allen and Marnell's house to babysit A.A., he still felt "pretty intoxicated." He
testified that he had injected anabolic steroids from July 2010 through most of October
2010. He stopped injecting the steroids about three or four weeks before A.A.'s death but
4
continued to take oral steroids and other illegal substances. He claimed the steroids
caused him to have a short temper.
In his defense to the second degree murder charge, Kruzik claimed that he had not
actually formed either express malice or implied malice because he was intoxicated
and/or had mental impairments. He presented defense expert Veronica Thomas, a
forensic psychologist, who evaluated Kruzik and diagnosed him with alcoholic
dependence disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, and borderline personality disorder. Dr.
Thomas explained that alcohol dependence refers to someone who has a physiological
dependence on alcohol in order to mediate and smooth out their moods. Body
dysmorphic disorder refers to someone who has a distorted and sometimes irrational
perception about himself. A person with borderline personality disorder has emotional
instability and may have low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety, along with
problematic interpersonal relationships.
Dr. Thomas stated that alcohol impairs judgment and volitional behavior. She
explained that a certain level of intoxication can affect one's ability to form intent and
mental capacity in general. It would affect sorting out data and making appropriate
assessments on how to use that data. Dr. Thomas noted that steroids can also impact
one's mood, behavior, and judgment.
5
Jury Instructions
The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 220,2 which articulated the
presumption of innocence and its requirement that the People prove a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 520,3
which explained that second degree murder is the unlawful commission of an act that
caused the death of another person committed with malice aforethought, and that malice
aforethought was express or implied.
The court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 5804 as to involuntary and
voluntary manslaughter. It gave the jury direction about the relationship between second
2 The court read CALCRIM No. 220 in part as follows: "A defendant in a criminal
case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove
something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶] Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is
true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is
open to some possible or imaginary doubt. [¶] In deciding whether the People have
proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider
all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal and you
must find him not guilty."
3 The court read CALCRIM No. 520 in part as follows: "To prove that the
defendant is guilty of [murder], the People must prove that: [¶] 1. The defendant
committed an act that caused the death of another person; and 2. When the defendant
acted, he had a state of mind called malice aforethought. [¶] . . . [¶] If you find the
defendant guilty of murder, it is murder of the second degree."
4 The court read CALCRIM No. 580 as follows: "When a person commits an
unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for
human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter. [¶] The difference between
other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person
was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded
6
degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter, and how the jury
should consider these three types of homicides with CALCRIM No. 642 as follows:
"You will be given verdict forms for guilty and not guilty of second degree
murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. [¶] You may consider
these different kinds of homicide in whatever order you wish, but I can accept a verdict
of guilty or not guilty of voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter only if all
of you have found the defendant not guilty of second degree murder. [¶] As with all the
charges in this case, to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty on a count, you must all
agree on that decision. [¶] Follow these directions before you give me any completed
and signed final verdict forms. Return the unused verdict forms to me, unsigned. [¶] . . .
If all of you agree that the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty of second degree murder, complete and sign that verdict form. Do not
complete or sign any other verdict forms for the homicide, count 1. [¶] If all of you
cannot agree whether the defendant is guilty of second degree murder, inform me that
you cannot reach an agreement and do not complete or sign any verdict forms. [¶] . . . If
that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and
awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious
disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting
from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the
risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter. [¶] The defendant committed involuntary
manslaughter if: [¶] 1. The defendant committed a crime; [¶] 2. The defendant
committed the crime with criminal negligence; and [¶] 3. The defendant's acts
unlawfully caused the death of another person. [¶] . . . [¶] In order to prove murder or
voluntary manslaughter, the People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant acted with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for human
life. If the People have not met either of these burdens, you must find the defendant not
guilty of murder and not guilty of voluntary manslaughter."
7
all of you agree that the defendant is not guilty of second degree murder, complete and
sign the form for not guilty of second degree murder. [¶] If all of you agree on a verdict
of guilty or not guilty of voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, complete
and sign the appropriate verdict form for each charge on which you agree. Do not
complete or sign any other verdict forms. You may not find the defendant guilty of both
voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. [¶] If you cannot reach agreement as to
voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, inform me of your disagreement.
Do not complete or sign any verdict form for any charge on which you cannot reach
agreement."
During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court whether the implied malice
theory only applied to the period during which the beating occurred, or whether it
extended through the night and into the next morning. In response, the court referred the
jury to CALCRIM No. 252.5
DISCUSSION
Kruzik contends the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte
with instructions such as CALJIC Nos. 8.72 or 17.10, which would have told the jurors
that if they were convinced that A.A.'s killing was unlawful, but had a reasonable doubt
about whether the crime was murder or manslaughter, they had to give Kruzik the benefit
5 CALCRIM No. 252 reads in part: "The following crime requires a specific intent
or mental state: Murder, as charged in count 1. For you to find a person guilty of this
crime, that person must not only intentionally commit the prohibited act, but must do so
with a specific intent and mental state. The act and the specific intent and mental state
required are explained in the instruction for that crime."
8
of the doubt and return a verdict finding him guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.
Pointing to the evidence of his mental impairments, as well as the effect his alcohol and
steroid use had on his temper, Kruzik maintains there was sufficient evidence to support a
finding that he had not actually formed malice aforethought, and was only guilty of the
lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter, thus warranting such an instruction. He also
argues that the jury's question shows this was a "close case" as to whether he should be
found guilty of murder or involuntary manslaughter, and that his conviction must be
reversed because it is reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have been
reached but for the trial court's instructional error.
The People counter on two grounds: (1) Kruzik forfeited his contentions, and (2)
the trial court's instructions were proper because CALCRIM No. 580, like CALJIC No.
8.72, instructs the jury as to the People's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I. Forfeiture
We reject the People's cursory forfeiture argument. They concede that absent an
objection, a defendant may challenge on appeal an instruction that affects his or her
"substantial rights." (§ 1259.) However, the People rely on the principle that "a party
may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the
evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate
clarifying or amplifying language." (People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 200, 218,
overruled on other grounds in People v. Trevino (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 237, 243-244.) They
point out Kruzik did not object to the court's instruction with CALCRIM No. 580 or
9
argue it was incorrect in law, and he did not request the court to give CALJIC No. 8.72 or
any other "clarifying" instructional language.
We disagree with the People's framing of Kruzik's claims. Kruzik's appeal is
premised on error under People v. Dewberry (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 548 (Dewberry), that is,
that the court's instructions failed to tell the jury that if it entertained a reasonable doubt
whether a greater or lesser offense was committed, it had to convict him of the lesser
offense. (Id. at p. 555.) If Kruzik were correct in this contention (though we conclude
below he is not), Dewberry error would affect his substantial rights. Under these
circumstances, an objection is not required. (See, e.g., People v. Cleveland (2004) 32
Cal. 4th 704, 749.) Therefore, even absent an objection, Kruzik has not waived the right
to appeal the alleged instructional error.
II. Claim of Instructional Error
A. Applicable Law
In a criminal trial, the court must give instructions to the jury sua sponte on the
general principles of the law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, that is,
" ' "those principles of law commonly or closely and openly connected with the facts of
the case before the court." ' " (People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 486, 529-530, italics
omitted; see also People v. Whalen (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 1, 68; People v. Barajas (2004) 120
Cal. App. 4th 787, 791.) But the court has no duty to give repetitious instructions (People
v. Fuentes (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1133, 1138) and the correctness of the jury
instructions given " ' "is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a
consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction." ' " (People v.
10
Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 1216, 1248; People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 792,
822; see Barajas, at p. 791.) When a defendant challenges instructions as being subject
to the jury's erroneous interpretation, he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
the jury understood the instructions in the way asserted by the defendant. (People v.
Solomon, at p. 822.)
Section 1097 provides in part: "When it appears that the defendant has committed
a[n] . . . offense, . . . and there is reasonable ground of doubt in which of two or more
degrees of the crime . . . he is guilty, he can be convicted of the lowest of such degrees
only." In Dewberry, the court addressed this section, stating it "presupposes that the jury
has concluded that the defendant is guilty of some . . . offense embraced within the
pleadings but is in doubt as to the degree of the offense proved. . . . [T]he words
'offense' and 'degrees' [in section 1097] . . . refer to all the degrees of criminality . . .
involved in a criminal act. . . . [¶] . . . [W]hether reasonable doubt exists as between
degrees of the same offense or as between the inclusive and included offense, the jury can
only convict of the crime whose elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
(Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at pp. 555-556.)
In Dewberry, a murder case, the trial court instructed the jury that there were two
degrees of murder and that if the jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the
defendant had committed the crime of murder but entertained a reasonable doubt as to the
degree, they should give him the benefit of the doubt and find him guilty of second
degree murder. (Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 554.) The court also instructed the
jury that if there was any doubt as to whether the killing was manslaughter or justifiable
11
homicide, the defendant was to be acquitted. (Ibid.) The court refused a general defense
instruction that would have told the jury that if it found the defendant was " 'guilty of an
offense included within the charge . . . , but entertain a reasonable doubt as to the degree
of the crime of which he is guilty, it is your duty to convict him only of the lesser
offense.' " (Ibid.) The defendant argued that since the instructions on manslaughter were
not accompanied by that further instruction, the jury was given the impression that the
rule requiring a finding of guilt of the lesser offense applied only as between degrees of
murder. (Id. at p. 555.)
The California Supreme Court agreed, explaining that the defendant's proposed
instruction went to the defense of reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt of second degree
murder, was responsive to issues raised by the evidence, and was essential to cure the
misleading effect of its absence in light of the other instructions given. (Dewberry,
supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 557.) "The failure of the trial court to instruct on the effect of a
reasonable doubt as between any of the included offenses, when it had instructed as to the
effect of such doubt as between the two highest offenses, and as between the lowest
offense and justifiable homicide, left the instructions with the clearly erroneous
implication that the rule requiring a finding of guilt of the lesser offense applied only as
between first and second degree murder." (Ibid.) The case was close on the facts; there
was evidence equally warranting a finding that the offense was manslaughter, and thus
the error was prejudicial. (Id. at pp. 557, 558.)
In People v. Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal. 4th 1216, the California Supreme Court
rejected a claim of Dewberry error where the defendant contended the trial court erred by
12
failing to specifically instruct the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt whether he was
guilty of attempted murder, but believed he was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon,
the jury should give him the benefit of the doubt and find him guilty of the lesser offense.
(Musselwhite, at p. 1261.) The defendant argued the omission confused the jurors
because the trial court gave "benefit of the doubt" instructions for murder and
manslaughter charges. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court disagreed. It pointed out the court
had given the jury "generally applicable instructions governing its use of the reasonable
doubt standard," which required the jury to find the defendant guilty of lesser included or
related offenses where it had reasonable doubt as to any included or related offenses or
degrees. (Id. at p. 1262.) Though the trial court had not instructed the jury specifically
with respect to attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, that did not bring the
case within Dewberry because the trial court gave another instruction that "fulfilled the
same function" as the defendant's proffered instruction, that is, it obligated the jury to
adopt an interpretation of the evidence pointing to the absence of specific intent where
the evidence was susceptible to two reasonable interpretations. (Musselwhite, at pp.
1262-1263.)
In People v. Barajas, supra, 120 Cal. App. 4th 787, the appellate court rejected the
defendant's claim that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 8.72
was prejudicial error under Dewberry. (Barajas, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 794.) It held
Dewberry was satisfied by the court's instruction: " '[I]f you . . . are not satisfied beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you may,
nevertheless, convict on a lesser crime, if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
13
that the defendant is guilty of the lesser crime. (Barajas, at p. 792.) As to this instruction
(CALJIC No. 17.10), the court in Barajas stated, "[W]hen its blanks are filled in for
murder and manslaughter, [it] is logically equivalent to CALJIC No. 8.72. If a jury is
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of either a greater or
lesser offense, this can only be because it has a reasonable doubt about elements of the
greater offense and no reasonable doubt about any elements of the lesser. CALJIC No.
8.72 does the same." (Barajas, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 793.)
B. Analysis
None of the CALCRIM instructions provided to the jury stated the law using the
same "benefit of the doubt" language as CALJIC No. 8.72, nor did they specifically
describe the circumstance of the jury having a reasonable doubt between greater and
lesser offenses. But jury instructions require no particular form. (See People v. Fiu
(2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 360, 370.) And the absence of such language does not result in
Dewberry error. As the foregoing authorities instruct, we review the entirety of the jury
instructions to ascertain whether the jury was properly advised of the principles expressed
in Dewberry: in short, that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 556.) More specifically in this context, Dewberry is
satisfied when the jury is instructed that if it finds the prosecution has not proven the
elements of the greater offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant can be
found guilty of the lesser offense if that offense has been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. (See People v. Barajas, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 794.)
14
Applying these standards, we reject Kruzik's claim that the jury was not given any
instruction that explained the effect of reasonable doubt on the choice between murder
and manslaughter. Rather, the trial court gave the jury generally applicable instructions
that made clear the burden of proof required to establish either second degree murder or
the lesser included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and directed the
jury what to do if it entertained reasonable doubts as to Kruzik's guilt as to second degree
murder.
As stated above, the trial court instructed the jury on second degree murder,
voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. Before instructing the jury as to
three homicide crimes and their respective elements, the court explained the reasonable
doubt standard, telling the jury the People had to prove Kruzik guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, and he was entitled to an acquittal if the evidence did not prove him
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It specifically told the jury that to prove murder or
voluntary manslaughter, as opposed to involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution had
"the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with an intent
to kill or with a conscious disregard for human life. If the People have not met either of
these burdens, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder and not guilty of
voluntary manslaughter." The jurors were aware of their obligation to acquit Kruzik of
second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter if they did not believe, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that he had the requisite intent.
Additionally, in connection with the verdict forms, the court explained to the jury
it "can accept a verdict of guilty or not guilty of voluntary manslaughter or involuntary
15
manslaughter only if [the jury has] found the defendant not guilty of second degree
murder." CALCRIM No. 642, like CALJIC No. 17.10 in Barajas, told the jury if it
found Kruzik not guilty of the greater crime (second degree murder), it could find him
guilty of manslaughter. We observe that the drafters intended CALCRIM No. 642 to
satisfy Dewberry in homicide cases as this one, in which second degree murder is the
greatest offense and one or more lesser offenses is submitted to the jury. (Bench Notes to
CALCRIM No. 642 (2014 ed.) p. 405.)
Thus, the instructions given to the jury taken as a whole adequately covered
defendant's point. The combined CALCRIM instructions6 did not leave misleading
impressions nor did they restrict the jury's ability to consider the lesser offense of
manslaughter, and they provided the jury with sufficient information to comply with
Dewberry's principles. There was no instructional error.
III. Kruzik Has Not Demonstrated Prejudice
Even if Kruzik was somehow able to establish Dewberry error, we would
conclude it was harmless. We look to the standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956)
46 Cal. 2d 818, 836: whether it is reasonably probable that, in the absence of the error, the
result would have been more favorable to the defendant. (Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at
p. 558; see also People v. Crone (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 71, 78.) Here, there is no
indication the jury entertained reasonable doubt as to whether Kruzik committed second
6 We agree that CALJIC instructions do not serve as a benchmark by which to
adjudicate the correctness of CALCRIM instructions. (See People v. Lawrence (2009)
177 Cal. App. 4th 547, 554.)
16
degree murder, and the evidence is abundant to support its verdict. The autopsy of A.A.'s
body revealed evidence of three impacts to the head. The forensic pathologist opined that
A.A.'s death was a homicide caused by blunt force trauma to the head. Kruzik admitted
to striking A.A. four times to her head, causing her to lose consciousness after the final
blow.
At trial, the jury considered Kruzik's defenses and found beyond a reasonable
doubt that he acted with malice aforethought. Kruzik does not explain how the jury's
question concerning implied malice reflects confusion about that matter, and we conclude
it does not. We conclude that even if the jury had been instructed with CALJIC No. 8.72
or some other similar instruction, it is not reasonably probable it would have convicted
Kruzik of the lesser offense of manslaughter.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
17