PEOPLE v. MUMIN (2021)

The petition for review is granted.

The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the following: Did the trial court err by providing a kill zone instruction? Did the Court of Appeal apply the proper standard of review under People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 370, 442 P.3d 686 in holding the trial court did not err in providing the kill zone instruction?

Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 68 Cal.App.5th 36, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 836, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins, JJ.