Error and/or relief
We vacate the robbery-murder special circumstance finding for lack of sufficient evidence. We otherwise affirm the judgment.
First Holding:
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. These same standards apply to challenges to the evidence underlying a true finding on a special circumstance.
Authority:
People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 804
Second Holding:
The only admissible evidence that the four defendants agreed to rob the victim is the second codefendant’s testimony to that effect. And the only admissible evidence that a robbery actually occurred comes from that second codefendant’s testimony that some of the codefendants eventually took the victim’s wallet from him, scanned it for valuables, and kept it. However, it is well-settled that because of the reliability questions posed by accomplice testimony, such testimony by itself is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction.
Authority:
People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 32
Third Holding:
The only other evidence of a conspiracy to robbery are those of a third and fourth codefendants made during a Perkins operation. Such evidence cannot corroborate the second codefendant’s testimony, because the required corroboration must come from a source other than another accomplice.
Authority:
People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 444, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Hinks (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1161
Fourth Holding:
In a “Perkins operation,” a suspect is placed in a cell with an undercover law enforcement agent, and their conversation is audio recorded.
Authority:
Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292