McMurtry v. Cal. Highway Patrol CA4/1

── McMurtry v. Cal. Highway Patrol CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 McMurtry v. Cal. Highway Patrol CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANN MCMURTRY et al., D087165 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. CIVSB2121497) v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Gilbert G. Ochoa, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Glickman & Glickman, Steven C. Glickman, Nicole E. Hoikka; The Sweeney Firm, and John E. Sweeney for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Iveta Ovsepyan, Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Dean, Stephanie A. Vollmer, and Elizabeth MacKinnon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. This case arises from a police shooting that resulted in the death of Charley McMurtry. McMurtry’s wife and minor child (through his guardian ad litem) filed suit against the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which employed the officers involved in the shooting, alleging claims for wrongful death, assault, battery, negligence, false arrest, violation of the Bane Act, and violation of the Unruh Act. The trial court granted the CHP’s motion for summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that the killing of McMurtry was reasonable and that no juror could conclude otherwise. On appeal from the subsequent judgment entered by the trial court against them, the plaintiffs assert the court erred by granting the motion because it focused too narrowly on the seconds that proceeded the fatal shooting, rather than considering the totality of circumstances that led to McMurtry’s death. Appellants contend that under this framework, triable issues of material fact remain concerning the reasonableness of the CHP officers’ conduct and the case should proceed to a jury. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with appellants and reverse the trial court’s decision granting the CHP’s motion for summary judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the afternoon on February 5, 2021, McMurtry’s wife, Ann, was driving on Interstate 10 with McMurtry in the passenger seat of her car. McMurtry suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. He had been recently hospitalized as a result of two suicide attempts. As they drove to pick up a relative from work, McMurtry began to talk about his military experiences. He was agitated and Ann offered to drive him to a veteran’s center where he was registered for mental health counseling. McMurtry then told Ann he loved her, suddenly pulled out a knife, and cut his wrists and throat. The knife “looked like a little paring knife,” and was two to three inches in total length. Ann began to pull her car to the shoulder of the freeway. Before she could come to a complete stop, McMurtry 2 jumped out of the car. Ann immediately called 911 and explained the situation. The incident report for the case shows Ann called 911 at 2:46 p.m. Three CHP officers responded to the call, which was announced on their dispatch radios: James Farner, Jesus Garcia, and Michael Migliacci. Farner heard the dispatcher state there was “an involved party in a brown Jeep” advising that her husband “just came out of the hospital for a 5150 hold.” The dispatcher reported the man w