Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.6 because it applied an incorrect definition of reckless indifference to human life.
First Holding:
The trial court erred in defining reckless indifference as meaning there is a foreseeable risk of death. Reckless indifference requires there be a grave or significant risk of death.
Authority:
In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677
Second Holding:
In criminal cases an appellate court may take into consideration the judge’s statements as a whole when they disclose an incorrect rather than a correct concept of the relevant law, embodied not merely in secondary remarks but in the court’s basic ruling. In the instant case, the trial court’s understanding of the law is set forth in the trial court’s ruling, as opposed to stray remarks. Accordingly, we will review the trial court’s presentation and application of the law of reckless indifference. Because this is a purely legal issue, we will utilize the independent standard of review.
Authority:
People v. Tessman (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1303
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988
Third Holding:
Reckless indifference means knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death. The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. There must be a significant risk of death. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient. Only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement. Participation in a garden-variety armed robbery, i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference.
Authority:
People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 883, 884
In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677
Fourth Holding:
In its ruling, the trial court asserted that recklessness is also determined by an objective standard, namely what a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. The trial court’s presentation of the law of recklessness failed to include the requirement that there be a significant risk of death, which is a crucial part of the reckless indifference analysis. By omitting a critical part of the law, one can infer that the trial court did not have a full understanding of the meaning of reckless indifference.
Authority:
People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884