California v. Lucero
Annotate this CaseA jury found Michael Lucero guilty of murder, second degree robbery, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm. The jury also found true an allegation that Lucero committed the murder during the course of a robbery. In addition, with respect to these counts, the jury found true allegations that Lucero personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). On appeal, Lucero claimed that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the murder charge on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, given the evidence of his voluntary intoxication presented at trial. ). In a published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could not consider Lucero's voluntary intoxication for purposes of determining the truth of these firearm enhancement allegations. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that any error in failing to instruct on second degree murder was harmless and that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Lucero also claimed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could not consider evidence of Lucero's voluntary intoxication in determining whether he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). Additionally (unpublished), the Court directed the trial court to correct an error in the abstract of judgment. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, but the matter remanded to the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.