California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Quesada, B260485 (Cal. App. 2016):
As also provided by CALCRIM No. 3471, however, a person who starts a fight (or engages in mutual combat) does not have to satisfy these "stop fighting" requirements where the person used non-deadly force and his or her opponent responded with "'such sudden and deadly force that the defendant could not withdraw from the fight.'" (See People v. Frandsen (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 266, 271; People v. Quach, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 301-302.) As the People appropriately concede, acknowledging that an initial aggressor or mutual combatant still has a right to self-defense when his or her opponent responds with sudden, deadly force, "This is not to suggest that [Quesada], as the initial aggressor, completely forfeited his right to self-defense under all circumstances." And there was substantial evidence that Canales employed the headlock so suddenly that Quesada could not try, announce or indicate that he wanted, or give Canales an opportunity to stop fighting. The fight lasted a very short time, perhaps only a
Page 19
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.