Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On June 13, 2022, at about 10:30 p.m., Alexander Chhay saw two men in the middle of Long Beach Boulevard in Long Beach. One man pointed a gun at the other, Chhay heard a gunshot, and the second man fell; the shooter got into a white or light-colored sedan with a dark bumper and drove away. The victim, Brian Contreras, died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. Chhay's dashcam video showed a silver Volkswagen Jetta with a black front quarter panel and no one at the scene other than Quintanilla and Contreras. On June 14 at 8:00 a.m., officers arrested Quintanilla in his silver Jetta parked in front of his apartment and found a loaded handgun in the driver's side door pocket; ballistics matched it to the casing and bullet from the scene.
Earlier that day, Ivan Montero had called Quintanilla to get high on Xanax, and they drove for over three hours discussing 'needing money.' Quintanilla stopped and got out; Montero heard a gunshot. When Quintanilla returned, he looked panicked, said he shot 'the guy' in the stomach, and showed Montero a necklace he had taken before driving Montero home.
In a recorded interview, Quintanilla changed his story three times: he first said he fired at the ground after seeing an unknown older man with a gun; then said he saw the older man cock a gun and checked on Contreras after he went down; and finally said Contreras called him a 'bitch,' that he pushed Contreras, and that he fired into the air without believing his shot struck Contreras. On February 27, 2024, a jury convicted him of second degree murder, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, and found true the personal firearm use allegation on the murder count. The court sentenced him to 15 years to life plus 10 years for the enhancement on count 1 and imposed and stayed eight-month terms on counts 2 and 3 under section 654, calculated as one-third the middle term of two years.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that the trial court erred by refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on heat of passion. Heat of passion requires subjective and objective components, and the victim must cause the provocation. None of Quintanilla's three versions supplied substantial evidence of legally sufficient provocation by Contreras: in the first two, an unidentified third party created any perceived threat, and in the third, a single verbal insult with no physical touching was substantially less provocative than the conduct rejected in Manriquez and Gutierrez, so a reasonable person would not have lost reason and judgment.
The court also rejected the claim that CALCRIM No. 372, the flight instruction, unconstitutionally discriminates against people of color. The instruction mandates no negative inference, expressly prevents jurors from finding guilt based solely on flight, and leaves jurors free to consider innocent motivations such as fear of law enforcement. Quintanilla offered no evidence of disparate impact—not even the number of defendants convicted where the instruction was given—and no evidence he fled because of racial concerns; he told detectives he fled to make a Door Dash delivery. Finding no prejudicial error, the court also rejected the cumulative error claim.
Exercising its inherent authority, the court corrected two sentencing errors. Under section 654, a term imposed and stayed must be a full term, so the eight-month terms on counts 2 and 3 were unauthorized. The court vacated those sentences and remanded with directions to impose a full term on each count and then stay execution under section 654, directed the clerk to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and send a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court does not err by refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction when the defendant's own statements deny shooting the victim and no version shows victim provocation that would cause a reasonable person to act in heat of passion.
- A single verbal insult, without physical touching by the victim, is insufficient provocation to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
- CALCRIM No. 372 does not violate due process or equal protection because it is permissive, allows innocent reasons for flight, and bars conviction based solely on flight.
- A discriminatory-impact challenge to CALCRIM No. 372 requires evidence of disparate impact, not generalized assertions about why people of color may flee police.
- Under Penal Code section 654, the term imposed and stayed must be a full term; appellate courts may vacate and remand unauthorized fractional terms.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the high bar for heat of passion provocation where the defendant's changing, uncorroborated statements undermine the claim and the victim's conduct is only a verbal insult. It also shows that racial-bias challenges to standard jury instructions require concrete evidence of disparate impact and record facts, not generalized claims about systemic racism.