People v. Gatison CA4/2

── People v. Gatison CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 P. v. Gatison CA4/2 See concurring opinion NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E081775 v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2100903) JOHNNIE JOSEPH GATISON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen J. Gallon, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Maxine Hart, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  INTRODUCTION Several people were in an alley in the early morning hours, where voices were raised. At some point, one of the persons in the alley, wearing a white shirt and a hat (later identified as Defendant Johnnie Joseph Gatison), pulled out a firearm, and another person, wearing a red hoodie, tried to wrest the gun from Defendant’s hands. A third person, victim Keiwaun Porter, intervened, attempting to break up the scuffle over the gun, but the gun discharged, striking Porter in the left thigh, piercing his femoral artery, and causing his death from blood loss. Despite conflicting statements about which of the two people involved in the scuffle over the gun was wearing a white shirt and a hat, as opposed to a red hoodie, Defendant was determined to be the person who had pulled out the gun and he was arrested for, among other charges, murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of those two counts and appealed. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred (with asserted constitutional implications) by (1) not reading certain bracketed language in the CALCRIM No. 520 jury instruction regarding “the act” and “causation,” which Defendant claims lessened the People’s burden of proof; (2) responding to a jury question requesting a definition of “the act” by not reading the bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 520, thereby allowing jurors to convict on a legally invalid theory; (3) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense per CALCRIM Nos. 505 and 571; (4) failing to instruct on 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 accident, per CALCRIM Nos. 510 and 511; and (5) the record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved his conduct satisfied the higher standard for implied malice murder set out in People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 (Reyes). We affirm. BACKGROUND a. The August 20, 2021, Incident2 On August 20, 2021, Charnesha Jenkins drove to a location on Greystone Lane in Hemet, California, to visit a friend. Jenkins stayed in her car and soon several people who were partying outside surrounded the car, which Jenkins had recently purchased. While seated in her vehicle, someone fired a sh