Danger Defense in O.C. Slaying Trial Is Upheld

The California Supreme Court, ruling in the case of a shooting on a Dana Point Beach, held Monday that defendants can escape murder convictions if they kill out of an honest but mistaken conviction that their lives are in imminent danger.

In a 5-to-2 decision, the court ruled that Christian Steffens of Laguna Niguel believed he was in imminent danger when he fatally shot Robert Elliott of Dana Point, a reputed “skinhead,” on Sept. 8, 1990, after an argument on the beach. Steffens was 16 at the time and Elliott was 18.

The court’s decision allows murder defendants to be convicted of lesser charges if they feared imminent harm from their victims. The doctrine upheld by the court, known as the “imperfect defense,” is widely employed by defendants, particularly by battered wives who kill their abusive spouses.

“Fear of future harm--no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm--will not suffice,” wrote Justice Marvin Baxter for the majority. “The defendant’s fear must be of imminent danger to life or great bodily injury.”

Without that defense, judges would be required to instruct juries to convict defendants of murder unless the killing occurred in clear self-defense or in the heat of passion.

Several witnesses testified at Steffens’ trial in June, 1991, that he was so fearful of Elliott that he had taken to sleeping with a gun next to his bed. The fatal shooting ended nearly two years of terror for Steffens, who was repeatedly beaten and threatened by Elliott, according to court records.

Juvenile Court Judge Francisco P. Briseno found Steffens guilty of second-degree murder in a non-jury trial and sentenced him to 17 years to life. Deputy Public Defender Marri Derby, Steffens’ trial attorney, appealed the verdict and sentence.

The state 4th District Court of Appeal reversed Steffens’ murder conviction in November, 1992, and reduced it to voluntary manslaughter. The attorney general then appealed to the state Supreme Court. The high court upheld the appellate ruling.

On Monday, it was not clear how long a sentence Steffens would have to serve for voluntary manslaughter.

The imperfect defense was also used by Lyle and Erik Menendez, who are facing new trials in Los Angeles for the slaying of their parents. The brothers argued that they feared for their lives after years of physical and emotional abuse.

Leslie Abramson, attorney for Erik Menendez, said the state Supreme Court’s decision reinforces her client’s right to assert that defense in his retrial. She said he and his brother had an “understandable” and imminent fear for their lives after they had threatened to make public their father’s alleged sexual abuse.

The defense lawyer praised the court’s ruling for making clear that such defenses have been used for decades.

“People seem to think that this was some sort of designer defense that was recently made up,” she said. “It clearly was not. . . . (The court) recognized that non-criminals kill.”

A state legislator has introduced a bill that would write into law the acceptability of the defense. The bill would codify a 1979 California Supreme Court decision that an honest, albeit unreasonable, fear of imminent danger negates the mental state of malice aforethought necessary for a murder conviction.

Prosecutors had contended that such defenses were barred under a 1981 state statute and the 1982 Victims Bill of Rights initiative. Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, joined by Court of Appeal Justice Robert K. Puglia in a dissent, agreed with prosecutors that the Legislature abrogated the defense in 1981.

“No court, not even a supreme one, may create new defenses or revive abrogated ones simply as a matter of policy or preference,” Lucas wrote.

The attorney for Christian Steffens could not be reached for comment.