California v. Hunter
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted Alan Hunter and James Paschall of first degree murder under the provocative acts doctrine for the slaying of their accomplice in a botched robbery at a jewelry store. The jury also convicted defendants of attempted second degree robbery and, in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found each had a prior serious or violent felony conviction. The trial court sentenced Hunter and Paschall each to a term of 30-years-to-life in prison, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder count and a five year enhancement for their respective prior convictions. The court stayed sentencing on the attempted robbery count under Penal Code section 654. On appeal, defendants argued the trial court erred in upholding a codefendant attorney’s claim of work-product privilege in declining to turn over a report of an interview the codefendant’s attorney and the attorney’s investigator had conducted with a jewelry store victim. The codefendant had pleaded guilty to reduced charges by the time defendants requested the interview midtrial or, alternatively, requested to call the codefendant’s attorney to testify about the interview. Defendants argued the interview was relevant to the provocative acts doctrine because it pertained to why the victim shot at the unarmed accomplice (Desmond Brown) whose death formed the basis of the murder charge against defendants. California's Penal Code does not provide for discovery among codefendants; each party is responsible for his own investigation and trial presentation. Exceptions exist to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial, but the Court of Appeal determined none applied here, particularly where defendants’ chief claim of the value of the codefendant’s interview turned out to be inaccurate, and where neither defendant suggested he could not secure an interview with the shopkeepers. In these circumstances, there was no infringement of defendants’ right to a fair trial. Defendants also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their murder conviction under the provocative acts doctrine, but the Court of Appeal determined there was no merit in that claim and therefore affirmed the 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.