Error and/or relief
[GARY NOTE: No relief was granted, because the errors were all found to be harmless in light of the rest of the evidence. The gold here rests in the relative clarity in which the principles of implied malice were set out by the court.] The trial court instructed the jury incorrectly on implied malice and aiding and abetting implied malice murder. However, we find the error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. If anything, the defect in CALCRIM No. 401 only made it harder for the jury to find defendant guilty. It would have been easier for the jury to find that defendant knew that the co-defendants intended to commit a life-endangering act than to find defendant knew they intended to commit murder, a life-ending act.First Holding:
Implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less. Implied malice contains an objective or physical component and a subjective or mental component.
Authority:
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143
People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, 106
Second Holding:
To be liable for an implied malice murder, a direct aider and abettor must aid the perpetrator in committing a life endangering act that proximately causes death.
Authority:
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991
People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713
Third Holding:
Instructions regarding the elements of the crime affect the substantial rights of the defendant, thus requiring no objection for appellate review.
Authority:
People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503
Fourth Holding:
Defendant’s jury was incorrectly instructed under CALCRIM No. 401 to determine whether defendant aided and abetted the perpetrators’ commission of a crime, not an act. Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. 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. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.
Authority:
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991
People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689,
People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122
Fifth Holding:
The instruction given was thus an erroneous aiding and abetting instruction for purposes of this case. We review the error under the Chapman harmless error standard.
Authority:
People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714-715
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24