Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury with a pinpoint instruction on imperfect self-defense

No question identified. : SUPREME COURT FILED MAR 1 0 202! —_——Courtef Appeal, Sixth Appettate DistrictNo. H04628T jorge Navarrete Clerk 8266686 Sy IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA é En Banc THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, JAMES ROLAND HENDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. The petition for review is denied. CANTIL-SAKAUYE Chief Justice i” Filed 127 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H046281 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F23406) Vv. JAMES ROLAND HENDERSON, . Defendant and Appellant. . L INTRODUCTION . On June 30, 2013, forty-year-old defendant James Roland Henderson murdered his mother, age 68, and his father, age 71. A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))' and found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). At the conclusion of a sanity trial, the jury determined that defendant was sane when he committed the murders. The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole, imposed various fines and fees, and ordered restitution. Defendant contends the trial court improperly instructed the jury with a pinpoint instruction on imperfect self-defense, excluded the statements of a deceased witness, admitted evidence that defendant was a trust beneficiary, allowed the prosecution to ' All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. question him regarding his religious beliefs, imposed a parole revocation restitution fine, and imposed fines and fees without determining his ability to pay. In addition, defendant claims that the cumulative effect of the trial errors mandates reversal. For reasons that we will explain, we will strike the parole revocation fine and affirm the judgment as modified. Il. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND? A. Prosecution Evidence 1. Background Evidence E.H. and J.H. married in December 1967. They moved to Aptos in 1982. E.H. was a founder of America Online and had also worked for NASA and IBM. E.H. played violin with the San Jose Symphony for 10 years and both she and J.H. were generous donors of the Santa Cruz Symphony. J.H. was the city engineer at the San Jose Airport and a real estate investor. By 2013, both E.H. and J.H. were retired. E.H. and J.H. had one biological child, M.H., and adopted defendant when he was nine months old. E.H.’s sister, P.L., was close to the family while the children were growing up. She never observed any violence by E.H. and J.H. toward the children, although they occasionally spanked them. Defendant started to get into legal trouble in middle school or high school. By his late teens, defendant no longer lived with E.H. and J.H. although he sometimes he stayed with them. At some point defendant went to prison. E.H. was closer to defendant than J.H. J.H. set the house rules and did not permit defendant “to do certain things or smoke certain things.” J.H. disciplined defendant but was not violent with him. E.H. and J.H. supported defendant, buying cars and giving him money. 2 Because defendant raises no claims pertaining to the sanity phase trial, we do not summarize the evidence from that phase. 2 functions and M.H. rarely saw him. E.H. and J.H. always let M.H. know if defendant was : going to be in Oakland, where M.H. lived, because they knew M.H. was afraid of him. M.H.’s children were not allowed to spend time with defendant or go to E.H. and J.H.’s home while defendant was there. E.H. and J.H. were also often uncomfortable with or ‘afraid of defendant. At one point defendant stayed in E.H. and J.H.’s home, but J.H. wanted him to move out and E.H. eventually agreed. There was also a time when defendant was not allowed in E.H. and J.H.’s home at all. Once, defendant threatened to kill E.H. and J.H.