California v. Horn
Annotate this CaseThe issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review in this case was whether the jury should have been allowed to consider defendant’s physical limitations in determining whether his belief in the need for self-defense was objectively reasonable. The case arose when defendant Jack Junior Horn shot Eugene Di Luigi following a dispute over Di Luigi’s dogs. Although defendant was charged with attempted murder, the jury acquitted him of that offense and found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal was that the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument by telling the jury his physical infirmities were immaterial to whether his belief in the need for self-defense was objectively reasonable. The Court of Appeal agreed and published its opinion to address the case law relied upon by the Attorney General, and also to illustrate how the mistake made by the prosecution here could be remedied. The Court concluded the trial court rectified the prosecutor’s misstatement by subsequently instructing the jury about the relevance of defendant’s physical infirmities on his claim of self-defense. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed.
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.