Error and/or relief
We reverse the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed murder as an aider and abettor with implied malice.
First Holding:
An aider and abettor of murder must actually aid and abet the lethal act in order to be convicted of murder.
Authority:
People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678
Second Holding:
The trial court announced its finding that, to be liable for an implied malice murder, a direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life endangering act, not the result of that act. The court treated the robbery as the life-endangering act that resulted in the victim’s death.
The court went on to state that the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor was an aider and abettor to the robbery with knowledge that his compatriots intended to commit the robbery; did, in fact, intend to aid the perpetrators in the commission of the robbery or attempted robbery, and had knowledge that the act was dangerous to human life.
The opinion in Morris was issued long after the juvenile court sustained the petition, and under Morris, the court’s reasoning was in error.
Authority:
People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671
Third Holding:
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We determine 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. In so doing, a reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
The same standard of review governs our review of the sufficiency of evidence in juvenile delinquency cases.
Authority:
People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715
In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809
In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 647, 653
In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540
Fourth Holding:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. An unlawful killing during the commission of a felony is also murder. Second degree implied malice murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought but without the additional elements, such as willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, that would support a conviction of first degree murder. Malice may be express or implied.
Authority:
PEN 187(a)
PEN 189(a),(e)
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151
Fifth Holding:
Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. In short, implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less. This definition is referred to as “simple implied malice murder.”
Authority:
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988
Sixth Holding:
To suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death. Implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of the risk of death to another.
Authority:
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 152
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989
Seventh Holding:
To be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical. The question of implied malice is to be decided in light of all the circumstances.
Authority:
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988
People v. Moore (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 937, 942
Eighth Holding:
Under Penal Code section 187, the mens rea required for murder is malice aforethought. Regarding aiders and abettors, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.
In the context of implied malice murder, the aider and abettor must know the perpetrator intends to commit a life-endangering act, intend to aid the perpetrator in the commission of that act, know the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard for human life.
Authority:
PEN 187
PEN 188(a)(3)
People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118
People v. Harris (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 623, 631
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991
Ninth Holding:
Murder also requires an actus reus. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act.
Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act.
Authority:
People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 660
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991
Tenth Holding:
As relevant to this aider or abettor theory of liability in a felony-murder, the amended felony-murder rule now states that when a person was not the actual killer, that person must have, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Section 189(e)(2) requires a nonkiller to aid the actual killer in the lethal act.
While the language of Penal Code section 188(a)(3), differs from section 189(e), pursuant to section 188(a)(3), a direct aider and abettor must act with malice aforethought, and act with intent to aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that proximately causes the death.
Authority:
PEN 189(e)(2)
People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678
People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 415
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991-992
Eleventh Holding:
Implied malice murder requires attention to the aider and abettor’s mental state concerning the life endangering act committed by the direct perpetrator, such as shooting at the victim, or, as in this case, stabbing him. In other words, the aider and abettor must know the perpetrator intends to commit a life-endangering act, intend to aid the perpetrator in the commission of that act, know the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard for human life. Even if the act results in a death that is accidental, the circumstances surrounding the act may evince implied malice.
Authority:
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 992
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468
People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, 110
Twelfth Holding:
SB 1437 abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of murder, amending section 188 to require that, when the felony-murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder shall act with malice aforethought, and that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. As a result, the natural and probable consequences doctrine can no longer support a murder conviction.
Authority:
PEN 188
In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 144
People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 847-848
Thirteenth Holding:
Instead, with the exception of section 189(e), a conviction for murder requires that a person act with malice aforethought and that a person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.
We conclude the legislative language of Penal Code section 188(a)(3) requires a finding that the accused actually aided the perpetrator in the commission of the life-endangering act, and that the accused’s participation in a dangerous felony as an aider and abettor cannot form the basis for finding implied malice.
Only in this way will a finding that the accused aided and abetted in the commission of implied malice murder reflect a determination of the person’s guilt based on his own actions and subjective intent.
Authority:
People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 660-661