Category Archives: Elements of crime

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000379

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2023 a jury convicted the defendant of, among other things, receiving a stolen vehicle and operating a chop shop. On appeal, the defendant seeks to vacate the former conviction because it is a lesser included offense of the latter. The People agree. We agree with the parties, reverse the conviction, and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

In California, a single act or course of conduct by a defendant can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged. But a judicially created exception to this rule prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses. In deciding whether an offense is necessarily included in another, we apply the elements test, asking whether all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense. In other words, if a crime cannot be committed without also necessarily committing a lesser offense, the latter is a lesser included offense within the former. Where defendant is convicted of a greater and an included offense, the conviction for the included offense must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1034

People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, 475

Second Holding:

Receiving stolen property is a lesser included offense of operating a chop shop. The elements of receiving stolen property are (1) stolen property; (2) knowledge that the property was stolen; and (3) possession of the stolen property. Operating a chop shop requires the same elements but adds the further requirement that the defendant intentionally own or operate a place in which such stolen property is altered, destroyed, disassembled, dismantled, reassembled, or stored in order to change their identity or to sell them. Accordingly, all of the elements of receiving stolen property are necessarily included in running a chop shop where, as here, it is clear from the information that the stolen property alleged to have been received is the same property, i.e., the stolen motor vehicles, that constitute the chop shop violation.

Authority:

People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, 476

Third Holding:

Because we reverse one of the defendant’s convictions, we must also remand to allow the trial court to conduct a full resentencing based on the surviving convictions.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000375

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Two murders support only one special circumstance of multiple murders. We strike one of the two multiple-murder enhancements.

First Holding:

Two murders support only one multiple-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000374

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was not the actual killer in the 1995 crime, but the trial court denied his 1172.6 petition based on finding that he was a substantial participant in the underlying felony and thus could be convicted of felony murder even under current law. We do not find substantial evidence to support a finding that the defendant subjectively appreciated (knew) that his actions would likely result in the victim’s death death (i.e., reckless indifference to human life). Thus, we reverse the order of the trial court denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to grant the petition, vacate the murder conviction, and resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

A person who did not kill or act with the intent to kill cannot be liable under a first degree felony-murder theory unless there is substantial evidence that the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and that they subjectively appreciated that their acts were likely to result in the taking of innocent life.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 893

Second Holding:

We accept the trial court’s findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means that evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Authority:

People v. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415–1416

People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 804

 

Third Holding:

Except for strict liability offenses, every crime has two components: (1) an act or omission, sometimes called the actus reus; and (2) a necessary mental state, sometimes called the mens rea. As to murder, the actus reus is the perpetrator’s act causing death, and the mens rea is malice aforethought. Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1437, which amended sections 188 and 189. The legislation effectively eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. The legislation also created a procedure by which a defendant previously convicted of murder under either of those former theories could file a petition for resentencing.

The Legislature’s current version of the felony-murder rule now provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer; (2) the person was not the actual killer, but, 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; (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6.

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117

Fourth Holding:

For felony-murder, the required act is being a major participant in the underlying felony, and the required mental state is a reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

Fifth Holding:

Ordinarily, the United States Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments requires a defendant to have either an express or implied intent to kill in order for the death penalty to apply. But as an exception, the Court held that major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.

Authority:

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 797 [wheelman who did not participate in killing during armed robbery could not receive the death penalty]

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158

Sixth Holding:

In Banks, the California Supreme Court later identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person was a major participant under the felony-murder special circumstance. The major participant factors identified in Banks are these: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

No one of these considerations is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient. All may be weighed in determining the ultimate question, whether the defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death was sufficiently significant to be considered major.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

Seventh Holding:

In Clark, the Court identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person acted with reckless indifference to human life: the defendant’s knowledge, and the use and number of weapons; the defendant’s proximity to the crime and opportunity to stop the killing or aid the victim; the duration of the conduct, that is, whether a murder came at the end of a prolonged period of restraint of the victims by defendant; the defendant’s awareness his or her confederate was likely to kill; and the defendant’s efforts to minimize the possibility of violence during the crime.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618-623

Eighth Holding:

Reckless indifference encompasses both subjective and objective elements. As to the subjective element, the defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, and he or she must consciously disregard the significant risk of death his or her actions create. As to the objective element,the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Ninth Holding:

The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. The possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony, such that one who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate such a crime may well anticipate the use of lethal force as a possibility. Were that degree of culpability sufficient, however, it would amount to little more than a restatement of the former felony-murder rule that the Legislature retired. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life; only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Tenth Holding:

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. Although any person who plans or participates in an armed robbery can be said to anticipate that lethal force might be used, only about 1 in 200 armed robberies result in death.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Eleventh Holding:

Courts must conduct a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry into where a defendant’s conduct falls on the spectrum of culpability between Enmund (the wheelman who merely participated in the underlying felony) and Tison (the defendants who armed escaped convicts and whose actions over a prolonged period demonstrated that they knew that the escapees were likely to kill).

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 882-883

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000362

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record of conviction does not show as a matter of law that defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 on his murder and attempted murder convictions. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequence doctrine, and the record does not show the jury necessarily found all elements of murder and attempted murder under current law. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective in 2019, the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and to limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. Amended section 188 provides that except as stated in the amended section 189 governing felony murder, 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. The bill also added what is now section 1172.6, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Relief is potentially available for a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter .

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1173

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Second Holding:

The section 1172.6 petitioning process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met, including that the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 . If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition. A defendant who petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 is ineligible for resentencing only if the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense. In making that determination a court may give effect to a jury’s factual finding. If the petition survives the prima facie stage, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the People bear the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6.

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Third Holding:

Under the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial, the defendant could have been found guilty even if not the slayer, because there was a second person who was the slayer. Additionally, the finding defendant personally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death does not establish the defendant intended to kill or was aware of the danger to life that his act posed. In sum, the jury verdict does not show as a matter of law defendant harbored malice aforethought. Under the trial court’s instructions, the jury could instead have concluded defendant aided and abetted an assault with a firearm the natural and probable consequences of which was murder. Thus, the entire record of conviction does not foreclose that defendant was convicted based on a now invalid theory of murder.

Authority:

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Fourth Holding:

Under current law, attempted murder requires intent to kill. We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the record of conviction shows defendant harbored intent to kill. The jury finding that the attempted murder was committed willfully and with premeditation and deliberation shows only that the slayer harbored this mental state. The jury does not further identify the slayer. Additionally, the fact defendant intended to discharge a firearm does not show the defendant harbored a particular mental state.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1132

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598 [explaining that section 12022.53(d) provides that the defendant must have intended to discharge a firearm, but does not refer to an intent to achieve any additional consequence.]

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000348

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for resentencing because the trial court determined one of the factors in aggravation against the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to a jury and relied on such determination in increasing his sentence. [Not error to fail to instruct on section 148 as lesser of section 69 because the jury necessarily relied on the force element of PC 69.]

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness. The right to a jury on any fact that increases the normal punishment for an offense derives from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Second Holding:

A criminal defendant does not waive his constitutional right to a jury trial by failing to object when a court resolves issues to which the right attaches without first obtaining the requisite waivers. As to whether the error was harmless, because the right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors derives from the United States Constitution, we assess prejudice under the standard set forth in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761 [When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and Chapman must be satisfied.]

Third Holding:

Because a reasonable jury could have concluded the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, we remand for resentencing without the need to consider their numerosity. Even if we were to reach the issue, we would likely have reasonable doubt a jury would have concluded the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous. Whether prior convictions are “numerous” for purposes of rule 4.421(b)(2) is not further defined in the California Rules of Court. A reasonable jury might consider numerosity in terms of the number of criminal episodes resulting n convictions, not in the number of convictions alone.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense de novo considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fifth Holding:

A trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser offense included in one charged if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense. Because this is a sua sponte obligation, a defendant may raise it for the first time on appeal. This instructional requirement prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other. Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither harsher nor more lenient than the evidence merits.

Authority:

People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30, 33, fn. 6

Sixth Holding:

The most significant difference between the lesser offense described in section 148(a)(1) and the greater offense described in section 69(a) is that a defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense even if he did not use force or violence to effectuate the resistance. Accordingly, the trial court was required to instruct on the lesser offense of section 148(a)(1) resisting if substantial evidence supported a finding that the defendant did not use force or violence when he resisted the deputies.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 153

Seventh Holding:

Resisting an officer by force or violence under section 69(a) does not require either a threshold quantum of force or violence, or the use of force or violence upon the person of the officer. The statutory language does not, in other words, require the defendant to have actual physical contact with the officer. Thus, forceful resistance of an officer by itself gives rise to a violation of section 69, without proof force was directed toward or used on any officer. Here, there is no evidence the defendant did not use force in resisting arrest by the deputies. Under the facts here, there is no substantial evidence to show that only the lesser crime was committed. No reasonable juror could conclude the defendant’s physical resistance amounted to a violation of section 148(a)(1) but not of section 69(a). Therefore, the trial court was correct not to instruct the jury on section 148(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Morgan (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 488, 508, disapproved on another ground in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 985-986 [where uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant struggled forcefully against arrest, instruction on section 148(a)(1) was unnecessary because there was no evidence on which a jury could conclude the defendant resisted without violating section 69(a)]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000347

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang murder special circumstances for counts 1 and 4. We also reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements for counts 1, 2, and 4. We remand the matter to the trial court to allow the District Attorney to retry the gang murder special circumstance and the gang enhancement for count 4 under the current version of the laws as amended by AB No. 333. Principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial as to the gang murder special circumstance for count 1 and the gang enhancement for counts 1 and 2.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 amended section 186.22. The amendment narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang as used for the gang enhancement in section 186.22(b) and the gang murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22). It changed the definition to an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, rather than individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity under the former version of section 186.22. A pattern of criminal activity under former section 186.22(e) required two or more predicate offenses committed on separate occasions or by evidence of such offenses committed by two or more persons on the same occasion.

The amendment changed the requirements of a pattern of criminal activity in four ways. First, a pattern of criminal activity now requires the predicate offenses to be separate from the currently charged offense or offenses. Second, the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the commission of the currently charged offense. Third, it requires that the predicate offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons. Fourth, the predicate offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang. AB 333 narrowed the common benefit for the gang by the commission of an offense to be more than reputational. The prosecution must show how the predicate offenses provided an actual common benefit to the gang, and that they did not merely enhance the reputation of its individual members.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460-461

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 450

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments as we have here. The instructions read to the defendant’s jury preceded the effective date of AB 333 and his appeal was pending on that effective date. The new requirements in section 186.22 apply retroactively to his case on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738-739

Third Holding:

We must reverse the gang enhancements and the gang murder special circumstance if any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion regarding the new requirements of AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 462

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 739

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 453

Fourth Holding:

The double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The state constitution provides the same protection. A defendant may not be tried a second time for the same offense if the conviction is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. Our conclusion that the gang special circumstance and the gang allegation were unsupported by sufficient evidence bars retrial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454-455, 468

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000339

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of insufficient evidence of the predicate offense, we reverse the juvenile court’s true finding on the gang enhancement as to count 1 pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A) and remand the matter for resentencing. The prosecution did not present any evidence of predicate offenses showing the alleged gang members individually or collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity. Thus, it did not prove that the robbery was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

First Holding:

Pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A), the juvenile court may impose a sentencing enhancement for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(b)(1)(A)

Second Holding:

A gang is an ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more enumerated offenses, having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(f)

Third Holding:

A pattern of criminal gang activity is the commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction of, two or more enumerated offenses, provided at least one of these offenses occurred after the effective date of [the criminal gang activity chapter], and the last of those offenses occurred within three years of the prior offense and within three years of the date the current offense is alleged to have been committed, the offenses were committed on separate occasions or by two or more members, the offense commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

Fourth Holding:

The offenses comprising a pattern of criminal gang activity are referred to as predicate offenses. The term ‘commission’ includes the broader statutory inclusion of the ‘attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction’ of a predicate offense.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 82

Fifth Holding:

Section 186.22(e) does not state that a predicate offense must be committed by a gang member. However, that requirement derives from the definition of a criminal street gang, which includes proof that the gang’s members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity. It follows, then, that the proof of a predicate offense must establish that a member of a defendant’s alleged gang was involved in its commission. Taken together the statutory scheme requires proof that gang members committed at least two predicate offenses within the statutory timeframe. Such proof will generally require evidence of who committed the crime and when they did so, as well as evidence of their gang membership and the nature of the crimes.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 829–830

Sixth Holding:

When assessing a claim of sufficiency of evidence of a gang enhancement under section 186.22, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below 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. While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of logic and reason and must rest on the evidence’; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.

Authority:

People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 468

Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000332

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse count 5 because section 4502 permits only a single conviction for possession of more than one weapon at the same time and place in prison.

Holding:

Section 4502 permits only a single conviction for possession of more than one unlawful weapon at the same time and place in prison.

Authority:

People v. Rowland (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 61, 64-67

(GARY NOTE: The opinion in Rowland relied on People v. Kirk (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 58, which held that possession of more than one sawed-off shotgun at the same time could result in only one count of conviction under what was then section 12020.

(What was then section 12020 has since been broken down into numerous sections by the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010. Its provisions were spread among many new code sections. Best to look at the charging document for the charge, but also look for separate sections that may define the terms.

(Subsequent to Kirk, the Legislature amended what was then section 12001 (now section 17800) to clarify that possession of more than one prohibited weapon simultaneously constituted separate offenses, each of which could be charged. The legislation specified the code section affected by the amendment, and Rowland relied on the absence of mention of section 4502 to conclude that possession of more than one weapon simultaneously under section 4502 still was limited to a single count, at least in part on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). The holding in this Case 000332 applied to section 4502. Rowland and its progeny should be used very carefully, and be cited only if its rationale has not been legislated away with respect to your given facts.)

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000331

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to appropriately instruct the jury that, in order to find them guilty of implied malice murder as aiders and abettors, the jury must find that they personally acted with malice.

First Holding:

In order to find the defendants guilty of implied malice murder as aiders and abettors, the jury must find that they personally acted with malice.

Authority:

People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972, 982 [the previous standard jury instructions on aider and abettor liability create an ambiguity under which the jury may find the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting second degree murder without finding that he personally acted with malice]

Second Holding:

We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review. When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. We consider the instructions as a whole and assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

Third Holding:

If a trial court incorrectly instructs on an element of a charged offense such that the error impermissibly shifted or lowered the burden of proof for that element, the applicable standard of prejudice is the Chapman standard. Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 570–581

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Fourth Holding:

For the error to be harmless, the state must show it would be impossible, based on the evidence, for a jury to make the findings reflected in its verdict without also making the findings that would support a valid theory of liability. While overwhelming evidence may demonstrate harmlessness, a court’s analysis of whether the evidence is overwhelming in this context is not as subjective or free-ranging as that term might imply. Instead, the analysis requires a court to rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well. The question here is not the sufficiency of the evidence to support a valid theory, but its opposite.

Authority:

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568, 591

Fifth Holding:

In determining whether instructional error that leaves out an element of the offense is harmless, we do not focus exclusively on the evidence favorable to the verdict, and we do not presume the existence of any facts the jury might reasonably infer in favor of the prosecution. We do not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and in doing so, we do not reweigh the evidence or resolve evidentiary conflicts. The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient—even if there is significant countervailing evidence, and the testimony is subject to justifiable suspicion. If a thorough review of the record shows there is any evidence that a rational juror could find as a basis for reasonable doubt as to any erroneously omitted element, then the error requires reversal, even when there is ample evidence to support a finding of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Madrigal (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 219, 243

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400

People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1166, 1167

People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052

Sixth Holding:

Second degree 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 either express, i.e., when a defendant manifests an intention to kill, or implied. 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. Thus, implied malice includes an objective component—an act that is dangerous to life—and a subjective component—the defendant’s awareness of and disregard for the danger. Intent to kill may be inferred from the defendant’s acts and the circumstances of the crime. A person can be convicted of aiding and abetting second degree murder based on implied malice.

Authority:

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 276, 299

People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 850 [Notwithstanding SB 1437’s elimination of natural and probable consequences liability for second degree murder, an aider and abettor who does not expressly intend to aid a killing can still be convicted of second degree murder if the person knows that his or her conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life]

Seventh Holding:

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:

ADPeople v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case: 000330

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On this appeal from denial of the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage, where the petition consisted of a check-box form, we remand with instructions for the trial court to consider any amended allegations filed by the defendant within 30 days of remand.

First Holding:

In 2019, the Legislature enacted SB 1437, which altered the rules of murder liability to ensure culpability more closely matched punishment. As part of this reform, the Legislature amended section 188 to prohibit imputing malice based solely on a defendant’s participation in a crime. In effect, a defendant can no longer be convicted of murder under an aiding and abetting theory merely because a killing was a natural and probable consequence of another intended offense.

Authority:

PEN 188

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 472

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 839

Second Holding:

To provide retroactive relief, SB 1437 also established a resentencing process, now codified in section 1172.6. This statute permits individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a theory of imputed malice to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and seek resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)

Third Holding:

Once the court receives such a petition, the section 1172.6 process unfolds in three distinct stages. At the first stage, a petitioner need only submit a facially sufficient petition that alleges the statutory prerequisites for relief. If the petition is facially valid, the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of counsel, if requested, and the matter proceeds to the second stage. At the second stage, the trial court must determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief. If the court finds the petitioners have met their burden of establishing a prima facie case, the court must then issue an order to show cause and proceed to the third stage: an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioners remain guilty under current law.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 562

Fourth Holding:

Patton makes clear that at the second stage a trial court may consider uncontroverted facts from the record of conviction. This includes an evaluation of preliminary hearing evidence to determine whether a still-valid theory of liability supported the conviction. However, Patton also teaches that at the second stage petitioners have the opportunity to show why they are not ineligible, despite what might appear in preliminary hearing transcripts. To meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case for relief, the petitioner must provide nonconclusory allegations that alert the court and prosecution to the issues to be decided at the evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Retroactivity, Vicarious liability

Case: 000329

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Habeas petition granted, because the defendant was convicted of first degree murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine found improper under Chiu, decided shortly after his conviction was final. The record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt he was convicted of first degree murder under another, valid theory of liability. We grant the petition and remand to the trial court so the People may decide whether to retry petitioner on the first degree murder charge or accept a reduction of the conviction to second degree murder.

First Holding:

An aider and abettor may not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Natural and probable consequences liability cannot extend to first degree premeditated murder because punishing someone for first degree premeditated murder when that person did not actually perpetrate or intend the killing is inconsistent with reasonable concepts of culpability.

Authority:

People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 165

Second Holding:

This holding is retroactive to convictions already final at the time Chiu was decided.

Authority:

In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1222

Third Holding:

When a trial court instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which was legally correct [e.g., direct aiding and abetting] and one legally incorrect [i.e., natural and probable consequences], reversal is required, unless the court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory that defendant directly aided and abetted the premeditated murder.

Authority:

People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 165, 167

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568 [a reviewing court may hold the error harmless where it would be impossible, based on the evidence, for a jury to make the findings reflected in its verdict without also making the findings that would support a valid theory of liability]