Error and/or relief
Though we the trial court erred in failing to instruct that mere presence at the scene is insufficient to prove guilt, the error was harmless in light of the other evidence presented. The abstract of judgment is premature. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for two years. The abstract of judgment, however, indicates that the defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years. It must be corrected.
First Holding:
The abstract of judgment is premature. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for two years. The abstract of judgment, however, indicates that the defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years. it must be corrected.
(GARY note: The court cited no authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. Likely because the error and cure seem so obvious. But there is plenty of authority for the court’s order, and I have set out some below.)
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Second Holding:
We review questions of instructional error de novo. In so doing, we consider the jury instructions as a whole, as well as the charges and entire record.
Authority:
People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218
People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 909
Third Holding:
In determining a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on isolated bits of evidence.Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.
In other words, the relevant question is 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. The standard is the same in cases in which the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.
Authority:
People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578
People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261
People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331
People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055
People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932
Fourth Holding:
A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, and (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime. Whether a person has aided and abetted a crime is a question of fact for which the trier of fact may consider presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense. The requisite state of mind may be proven with circumstantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054-1055
Fifth Holding:
Although defendant’s mere presence at the scene cannot alone establish aiding and abetting, her presence may be considered along with other evidence to establish that she aided and abetted the burglary. Further, possession of recently stolen property cannot alone establish burglary, but such possession is highly incriminating and need only be slightly corroborated.
Authority:
People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 57
People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055
People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176
People v. McFarland (1962) 58 Cal.2d 748, 754-755
Sixth Holding:
It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. The trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the mere presence portion of the aiding and abetting instructions where there is substantial evidence supporting its consideration.
Authority:
People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 422
People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 557
Seventh Holding:
We conclude that the defendant’s testimony was sufficient to trigger the trial court’s sua sponte duty to give the mere presence portion of the aiding and abetting instruction. However, whether prejudice is to be measured under the Watson standard or the more rigorous Chapman standard, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure to instruct was harmless, in light of our review of the entire record, including the arguments of the parties.
Authority:
People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 557
People v. Perry (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 251, 260
People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 715
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18