News Releases

en Español

District Attorney’s Office requested dismissal, unable to prove case beyond a reasonable doubt

LOS ANGELES – A judge today was scheduled to hear a prosecution’s motion seeking to dismiss an indictment charging two Torrance police officers with voluntary manslaughter in the 2018 shooting death of 23-year-old Christopher Deandre Mitchell, who was sitting in a suspected stolen car with an altered air rifle between his legs. The hearing was postponed, however, pending a writ by the defendants asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman thoroughly reviewed the case, along with Special Prosecutor Michael Gennaco, one of the nation’s most experienced police use-of-force experts. In a 26-page memo, attached to the dismissal motion, Special Prosecutor Gennaco dissected the case, analyzed all the facts and the law and determined the case should not move forward because there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The motion was filed Thursday.

“This was not an easy decision, as evidenced by three district attorneys and two special prosecutors who reviewed every aspect of this case,” District Attorney Hochman said. “We cannot move forward in good faith with prosecuting these two officers because we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence that the officers unreasonably believed they were in imminent danger when they saw what looked like a sawed-off shotgun or rifle between Mr. Mitchell’s legs and his hands moved toward the weapon just before the officers shot.

The decision does not sit well with Mr. Mitchell’s family, whom I met with this week. Their grief and anger over the killing are understandable and this is not the outcome they sought. However, since former District Attorney George Gascon and his Special Prosecutor Lawrence Middleton failed to bring the case to the grand jury to consider involuntary manslaughter before the three-year statute of limitations for that charge expired in December 2021, and since Middleton relied on a legal theory of officer-created jeopardy that the trial judge ruled improper, I concurred with Special Prosecutor Gennaco that the People could not prove voluntary manslaughter against these officers beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, we moved to dismiss the charges.”

Torrance police officers Matthew Concannon (dob 6/6/85) and Anthony Chavez (dob 10/6/88) were each indicted by the grand jury on one count of voluntary manslaughter in March 2023.

On Dec. 9, 2018, Concannon and Chavez responded to a call about a stolen vehicle and they both approached a car with Mitchell inside. The officers instructed Mitchell to place his hands on the steering wheel and he initially complied. Concannon opened the driver’s side door and Chavez noticed what appeared to be a rifle or shotgun between Mitchell’s knees.

Concannon ordered Mitchell to exit the vehicle and then said he saw Mitchell’s hands lower toward the weapon. Concannon believed Mitchell was retrieving the gun, placing him and Chavez in imminent peril of being shot. As a result, Concannon fired one shot. Chavez fired two additional shots. Mitchell died at the scene.

The case was initially reviewed by highly experienced prosecutors who dealt with police use-of-force cases under then-District Attorney Jackie Lacey. These prosecutors concluded in October 2019 that charges should not be filed against Concannon and Chavez because the officers acted lawfully in using deadly force, reasonably believing Mitchell had a firearm and their lives were in danger.

After being elected as district attorney, George Gascon decided to review four officer-involved shootings, including the Mitchell case. He hired Middleton as a special prosecutor who presented the case before a grand jury in March 2023.

Middleton, who began work in June 2021, could have initially sought involuntary manslaughter charges, but the three-year statute of limitations for that charge expired in December 2021, well before he presented the case to the grand jury. Unlike voluntary manslaughter, there is no intent-to-kill requirement with involuntary manslaughter, only needing to prove criminal negligence or recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, Middleton presented evidence to the grand jury of “officer-created jeopardy,” a legally questionable theory that cited a host of tactical errors by the two officers which led to the fatal shooting, negating their self-defense. 

Among them:

• Failure to execute a high-risk felony stop where the officers would not approach the car and ordered Mitchell to exit the vehicle, using their car for cover
• Failure by the officers to advise one another that they observed a firearm between Mitchell’s legs
• Failure to warn Mitchell prior to using deadly force

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta ruled that officer-created jeopardy evidence relied on by Middleton was inadmissible in this case. He based his decision in part on the fact that since the law that would allow a jury to consider such evidence did not come into existence until 2020, that law cannot be applied retroactively to this December 2018 incident. Under this new 2020 law, California has shifted the legal standard for the justifiable use of deadly force by law enforcement officers from reasonable to necessity.

Special Prosecutor Gennaco found there was insufficient admissible evidence to overcome the officers’ observations that Mitchell had a long firearm between his legs and their reasonable belief that he presented a deadly threat to them. Analyzing the 12-second shooting in meticulous detail, Gennaco methodically concluded that, as detailed in his memorandum, the prosecution could not meet its burden at trial of proving the voluntary manslaughter charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Cases like these should not be used to gain political favor or advance an ideology that neglects the tenets of our profession,” District Attorney Hochman said. “We should be guided by the facts and the law, always ensuring fairness and impartiality in everything we do. Where the facts and the law demonstrate we can meet our legal burden against officers who cross the line into criminal conduct, we will prosecute them vigorously, as we would any other criminal. Where we can’t, we won’t.”