On March 30, 2010, at approximately 3 a.m., Escondido police received a 911 call from an individual who reported that there was a potential domestic violence incident occurring in a nearby apartment. The neighbor reported that he heard a man constantly screaming at a woman, that it was getting worse and that he thought someone was being hurt. The Escondido Police Department dispatched two police officers to investigate the disturbance. The officers responded to the home of Randy and Graciella Mullins, a married couple. The specific facts are disputed; however, Randy Mullins was shot (struck 13 times) and killed by one of the officers. Graciella Mullins sued the city of Escondido. She sought wrongful death damages, alleging police misconduct (unnecessary and excessive force). Mullins contended that the officers did not announce their presence and burst open the door, and then shot her husband, who was not posing any threat to the officers. She contended that the use of force and the number of shots fired was unjustified and unreasonable under the circumstances. The city contended that upon arriving at the scene, the officers went to the front door to make contact with the occupants. The officers claimed that after knocking on the door and announcing that they were with the police, they heard a shotgun being “racked” inside of the apartment. One officer claimed that as he moved away from the front door quickly, Randy Mullins opened the door holding a shotgun. The other officer claimed that he grabbed the barrel of the shotgun and wrestled with Mullins for control of the shotgun. At the same time he was struggling with Mullins, the other officer claimed that he shot at Mullins with his handgun 16 times, hitting him 13 times. Mullins died at the scene. The city claimed that the force used was reasonable under the circumstances., Mullins asked the jury for an unspecified amount in wrongful death damages for loss of her husband’s society, companionship and love. The city contended that the force used was reasonable, and that the plaintiff was owed zero damages.