Category Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000798

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying his petition either because the court either improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to prove his mental disorder was a significant factor in his charged crimes, or because substantial evidence does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that his mental disorder was not such a factor.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1001.36 provides that a defendant in a criminal case is eligible for mental health diversion if he demonstrates: (1) he has been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder; and (2) that disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged crime.

The defendant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that he or she meets the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion. However, if the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1078–1079

Second Holding:

Additionally, the statute gives the trial court discretion to deny diversion even if the statutory requirements are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 134

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or when it bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Pacheco (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 207, 213

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

Fourth Holding:

A trial court is not bound by an expert’s testimony and opinion. But even were the court to discount the psychiatrist’s report’s conclusion in its entirety, the absence of evidence proving that petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses. It was the prosecution’s burden to present such clear and convincing evidence.

Here, it appears that the court either placed the burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses or found clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a significant factor. In other words, the court either applied the wrong legal standard or based its decision on a factual finding unsupported by substantial evidence. Either way, reversal is required.

Authority:

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 823 [The fact finder determines the facts, not the experts. Indeed, the fact finder may reject even a unanimity of expert opinion]

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

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

Case 000796

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The conviction of assault with a firearm is reversed for insufficient evidence.

First Holding:

Section 245(a)(2), criminalizes the commission of an assault upon the person of another with a firearm. Assault is defined by statute as an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

Authority:

PEN 245(a)(3)

PEN 240

Second Holding:

Assault is a general intent crime. It requires proof that the defendant willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another. Further, the defendant must have been aware of the facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would directly, naturally and probably result.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 782, 788

Third Holding:

The actus reus of assault is the present ability to commit a violent injury on the person of another. It is the action enabling[a defendant to inflict a present injury. The present ability element is satisfied when a defendant has attained the means and location to strike immediately. In this context, however, immediately does not mean instantaneously. It simply means that the defendant must have the ability to inflict injury on the present occasion even if the defendant is several steps away from actually inflicting injury.

Authority:

PEN 240

People v. Chance (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1164, 1167-1168, 1172

People v. Licas (2007) 41 Cal.4th 362, 370

Fourth Holding:

As a general rule, a defendant cannot commit assault with a firearm using an unloaded or inoperable weapon, unless the firearm is used as a club or bludgeon. The reason is straightforward: absent the means to fire the weapon, the defendant lacks the present ability to commit a violent injury on the person threatened, in the manner in which the injury is attempted to be committed.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11, fn. 3

People v. Mosqueda (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 540, 544 [person pointing an unloaded gun at another has no present ability to commit a violent injury]

People v. Ranson (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 317, 321

People v. Fain (1983) 34 Cal.3d 350, 357, fn. 6

People v. Valdez (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 103, 110–111, 112 [assault defendant with an unloaded gun lacks personal means to inflict injury]

People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 102

People v. Orr (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 666, 672

People v. Sylva (1904) 143 Cal. 62, 64

People v. Lee Kong (1892) 95 Cal. 666, 669 [it cannot be said that a person with an unloaded gun would have the present ability to inflict an injury upon another many yards distant]

People v. Chance (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1164, 1167-1168, 1173, fn. 11 [as the unloaded gun cases demonstrate, the defendant must have an actual, not merely apparent, ability to inflict injury]

Fifth Holding:

This rule, however, is not categorical. Consistent with Chance’s explanation that present ability requires only the ability to inflict injury on the present occasion, courts have recognized that an unloaded or inoperable firearm may support assault liability where the evidence establishes the defendant had the means to load and/or render it operable immediately.

Authority:

People v. Lattin (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 596, 612, 620 [there is no brightline-rule requiring a loaded firearm]

People v. Ranson (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 317, 321

Sixth 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. This determination presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Cardenas (2025) 18 Cal.5th 797, 821

Seventh Holding:

(Gary note: the court then outlined the evidence and concluded that it was insufficient to support this count. The defendant pulled the trigger but the gun was unloaded, and there was no evidence that he had the ability to reload it at the time of the offense. Thus, he had no present ability.)

Accordingly, the conviction on count 2 must be reversed for insufficient evidence, and double jeopardy bars retrial on that charge. The associated firearm enhancement (sec. 12022.5(a)) necessarily falls with the conviction. We vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 39

Eighth Holding:

A full resentencing is appropriate when part of a sentence is stricken on review. This permits the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000794

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred at the recall of sentence hearing under section 1172.6 when it refused to review the transcript of the district attorney’s summation at the original trial. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for the court to consider the record of conviction in its entirety.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 added what is now section 1172.6 and made other amendments to the Penal Code that eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine and limited the scope of liability that could be imposed under the felony murder theory.

The purpose of this legislation was to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Outside of the felony-murder rule, a conviction for murder requires that a person act with malice aforethought. A person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, SB 775 further limited the theories under which a defendant could be prosecuted to better reflect this purpose.

As a result, section 1172.6(a) now provides that 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 may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts when all of the following conditions apply:

(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, 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;

(2) The petitioner was convicted of murder following a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder;

(3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)

Third Holding:

The court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause. The parties can, and should, use the record of conviction to aid the trial court in reliably assessing whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief under subdivision (c).

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(c)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

Fourth Holding:

The prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited. A court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

The prima facie bar was intentionally and correctly set very low. At the prima facie stage, a court must accept as true a petitioner’s allegation that he or she could not currently be convicted of a homicide offense because of changes to [s]ection 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019, unless the allegation is refuted by the record. And this allegation is not refuted by the record unless the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense.

If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing of eligibility, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

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

Fifth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination of whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

Sixth Holding:

The trial court erred by refusing to consider the prosecutor’s closing argument when determining whether the defendant made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 [record of conviction may include closing arguments of counsel]

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 55 [considering counsel’s arguments when determining prima facie eligibility under section 1172.6]

Seventh Holding:

In promulgating SB 775, the Legislature specifically provided relief to persons who may have been convicted under another theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

Where the petitioner argues that he or she was convicted under another theory of imputed malice, the absence of natural and probable consequences and felony-murder instructions to the jury alone may not be sufficient to preclude eligibility as a matter of law.

As here, where the petitioner has identified specific portions of the record of conviction in support of the claimed theory of imputed malice, the trial court should consider that record material in the first instance to make its prima facie determination.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing and remand the cause to the trial court to consider the record of conviction in its entirety.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 661 [legislature intended SB 1437 to reach beyond felony murder and natural and probable consequences cases]

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000791

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court reimposed the restitution fine that was ordered at the original sentencing more than 10 years earlier. The restitution fine must be vacated.

First Holding:

Defendant contends the trial court erred by reimposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) because the language of section 1465.9(d) mandates vacating these fines after 10 years. The People disagree and counter defendant’s fines were reimposed at the resentencing hearing, making section 1465.9 inapplicable because 10 years have not elapsed under the statute. We agree with defendant.

Authority:

John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95

Second Holding:

Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Third Holding:

Trial courts have jurisdiction to modify every aspect of a sentence at a full resentencing hearing, including fines. Here, at resentencing the trial court confirmed and reimposed all previous terms, conditions, fines and fees, and admonishments provided by the court on the day of defendant’s original sentencing. The court clearly intended to reimpose the original restitution fine and not an additional, new obligation under section 1202.4(b).

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

People v. Rosas (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 107, 117

People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 34

Fourth Holding:

As in Salstrom, we find no support for the People’s position that this reimposition restarted section 1465.9’s 10-year clock. The plain language of section 1465.9(d) provides legislative intent to eliminate restitution fines under section 1202.4 after 10 years. Allowing trial courts to reimpose a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) originally imposed more than 10 years prior could render section 1465.9 effectively meaningless for any defendant who is subject to a full resentencing” or is successful on an appeal or a collateral attack.

Authority:

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, review granted on another issue March 11, 2026, S295038

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000789

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the trial court abused its discretion. It failed to follow the governing statute’s directions. Its conclusion that the defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, as defined by section 1001.36(c)(4), was unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we issue the requested writ of mandate and direct the court to grant the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36 to create a diversion program for criminal defendants with diagnosed mental health disorders. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. By its terms, section 1001.36 was designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 887, 890

Second Holding:

The decision whether to grant diversion is a two-step process. First, the court determines if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements set forth in section 1001.36(b). Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) – (b)

Third Holding:

Second, the court determines if the defendant is suitable for diversion under the factors set forth in section 1001.36(c). Those factors are: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in sections 1170.18 and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) and (c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Fourth Holding:

Finally, even when all eligibility and suitability factors are met, courts have discretion to deny mental health diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 895-896

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fifth Holding:

Our review is for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1170.18, the Legislature has narrowly defined an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety to mean an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). The violent felonies encompassed in this definition are known as super strikes. The super strikes are murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, or any sexually violent offenses or sexual offense committed against minors under the age of 14.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

People v Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1150-1151

Seventh Holding:

By statute, when determining the risk of danger, t]he court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate. A defendant who seeks diversion is not being sentenced, so the general sentencing objectives set forth in rule 4.410 of the California Rules of Court are inapplicable.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Eighth Holding:

A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

The trial court expressed that it could not know whether the defendant was going to commit a super strike, and based on his two violent incidents from 2007 and 2010, the trial court concluded that there was a danger that there was a likelihood that the defendant could commit a super strike, thereby permitting the trial court to exercise its residual discretion to deny diversion.

But the court misunderstood what was required. The plain language of the statute requires a finding that a defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

The statute does not, as the trial court suggested, require a prediction that a defendant will not, in fact, commit a super strike. The correct analysis thus requires assessing probabilities; not predicting outcomes, as the trial court incorrectly understood.

These are two distinct types of inquiry. Applying the correct standard to the record before us, we conclude the evidence is insubstantial that the defendant is too dangerous to be treated in the community on the ground that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998

Ninth Holding:

The only question that remains is whether further proceedings are required. We conclude they are not. The trial court found that the defendant satisfied all criteria for diversion except the public safety factor, leaving nothing further to be decided. The People do not argue otherwise. Under these circumstances, we will reverse the court’s order with directions to grant the defendant’s motion unless the People present changed circumstances that warrant rehearing.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1005

 

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000786

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

By shifting the burden of proof from the People to appellant, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition to terminate his duty to register as a sex offender.

First Holding:

Before 2021, if an offender was required to register as a sex offender, they were required to register for life. Beginning on January 1, 2021, SB 384 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) restructured the sex offender registration requirement into three tiers: tier one, registrants must register for at least 10 years; tier two, for at least 20 years; and tier three, for their lifetimes.

Authority:

PEN 290(d)

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 190

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432

Second Holding:

Appellant is a tier two registrant who is required to register for at least 20 years. Provided the registrant meets certain criteria, including registering for the required minimum period, a registrant can petition the superior court to terminate the registration requirement.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)-(c)

Third Holding:

Upon receiving notice of a petition to terminate registration, the district attorney may object and present evidence demonstrating that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration.

The prosecutor has the burden of producing evidence to establish terminating the registration requirement would considerably raise the threat to society because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task is to assess whether the People have carried their burden of producing evidence establishing that requiring continued registration appreciably increases society’s safety.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fourth Holding:

In making this determination, the trial court may consider the following seven factors: [(1)] the nature and facts of the registerable offense; (2) the age and number of victims; (3) whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); (4) criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registerable offense; (5) the time period during which the person has not reoffended; (6) successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and (7) the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.

The trial court may base its determination upon declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties which is reliable, material, and relevant.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(3)

Fifth Holding:

The standard of review applied by an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s order on a petition for termination is abuse of discretion. The showing required to establish an abuse of discretion is as follows: To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate the trial court’s decision fell outside the bounds of reason, i.e., was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Sixth Holding:

Section 290.5 required the prosecutor to prove that appellant was currently likely to reoffend and that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Here, the trial court denied the petition, at least in part, due to the absence of evidence that appellant no longer posed the threat he did when he committed the registrable offenses. Doing so placed the burden on appellant, rather than on the prosecutor, to produce evidence of the current threat, if any, posed by appellant. This was error. We remand for a new hearing.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(2)-(3)

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432-433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Seventh Holding:

(Gary Note: The court proceeded to explain why the error was prejudicial, applying the Watson standard, based on facts specific to this defendant, and the details need not be recited in this summary.)

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000783

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred by sentencing defendant to the upper term on his robbery conviction.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2022, SB 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) went into effect, amending section 1170. Section 1170 authorizes a trial court to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Second Holding:

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). An exception to this allows a trial court to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Under that exception, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834

Third Holding:

In Wiley, the California Supreme Court addressed section 1170(b)(3)’s prior conviction exception in light of Erlinger. To avoid any application that would set section 1170(b)(3) at odds with the high court’s constitutional interpretation, we interpret section 1170(b)(3)’s procedure in a manner that is coextensive with high court dictates. Thus, in accordance with Erlinger, the Wiley court held a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that 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.

Each of the four aggravating factors found true by the trial court required finding true more than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements. Accordingly, the court’s reliance on each of the other four aggravating factors (rule 4.421(b)(2)–(5)) was erroneous. Moreover, we cannot conclude that all of these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743 [a sentence imposed under former 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]

Fifth Holding:

Whether a defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)) is a comparative and qualitative determination which makes it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [to the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000781

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because the police improperly prolonged his detention to conduct a criminal investigation unrelated to the purpose of the initial traffic stop.

First Holding:

Section 1538.5 affords criminal defendants a procedure by which they may seek suppression of illegally seized evidence. Section 1538.5 provides a comprehensive and exclusive procedure for the final determination of search and seizure issues prior to trial. A motion to suppress may be filed independently or at the preliminary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 940

Second Holding:

When a suppression motion is made before a magistrate in conjunction with a preliminary hearing, as in this case, the magistrate tries the facts, resolving credibility issues and conflicts in the evidence, weighing the evidence, and drawing appropriate inferences.

If the magistrate denies the motion and holds the defendant to answer, the defendant must, as a prerequisite to appellate review, renew his challenge before the trial court by motion to dismiss under section 995 or in a special hearing.

At that stage, the evidence is generally limited to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, testimony by witnesses who testified at the preliminary hearing (who may be recalled by the prosecution), and evidence that could not reasonably have been presented at the preliminary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941

Third Holding:

Where a suppression motion is made before a magistrate in conjunction with a preliminary hearing and no new evidence is presented in superior court, we are concerned solely with the findings of the magistrate. After submission on the transcript at the special hearing, the appellate court, like the superior court, is bound by the magistrate’s factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

On review of the superior court ruling by appeal or writ, a two-step standard of review applies. In the first step of our review, we in effect disregard the ruling of the superior court and directly review the determination of the magistrate.

At this stage, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the People since all factual conflicts must be resolved in the manner most favorable to the superior court’s disposition on the suppression motion.

Authority:

People v. Tacardon (2022) 14 Cal.5th 235, 242

People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941

Fourth Holding:

In the second step, accepting as established all implied or express factual findings by the magistrate as are supported by substantial evidence, we then proceed to measure those findings against Fourth Amendment standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court. At this stage, we independently apply the law to the factual findings, determining de novo whether the factual record supports the magistrate’s conclusion that the challenged search met the constitutional standard of reasonableness.

Authority:

People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941-942

People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1212 [In California, issues relating to the suppression of evidence derived from governmental searches and seizures are reviewed under federal constitutional standards.]

Fifth Holding:

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a seizure of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. But where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, the seizure is constitutionally reasonable.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 4th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 13

Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 574 U.S. 54, 60

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669

Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809–810

Sixth Holding:

A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a relatively brief encounter for police investigation of the traffic violation. The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.

The United States Supreme Court has identified tasks that are part of an officer’s mission during a stop for a traffic violation: Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.  A temporary detention may sometimes also include a criminal history check, which is done by consulting an incar computer terminal or radioing dispatch.

These tasks are included within the officer’s mission during a traffic stop because they ‘serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. An officer may also require a lawfully stopped driver to exit the vehicle for officer safety to complete his traffic stop mission.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669-670

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354, 355-356

People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 363, fn. 4

Seventh Holding:

On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from the traffic stop’s mission. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. Thus, while an officer may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 670

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

Eighth Holding:

An investigative stop can grow out of a traffic stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to expand the investigation, even if those suspicions were unrelated to the underlying traffic offense. Therefore, a stop may be prolonged if the prolongation itself is supported by independent reasonable suspicion.

Authority:

People v. Espino (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 746, 756–757

People v. Vera (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1088

Ninth Holding:

Under the totality of circumstances, we conclude the detention was unjustifiably prolonged beyond the time reasonably needed to write the defendant a traffic ticket. Nor was the prolonged detention independently justified by reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity apart from the broken taillight. The traffic stop occurred mid-morning in broad daylight. There was no evidence that it occurred in a high-crime area; indeed, the magistrate was not sure about [the location] and how tough an area that is. And the defendant complied with all officer commands.

On this record, we conclude that although reasonable suspicion justified the initial traffic stop and removal of the defendant from his vehicle for a weapons pat-down, no reasonable suspicion justified prolonging the detention beyond the time necessary to write a traffic ticket so that the officers could further investigate the defendant for drug offenses unrelated to the mission of the traffic stop.

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354 [Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.]

People v. Vera (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1088 [a stop may be prolonged if the prolongation itself is supported by independent reasonable suspicion]

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1038–1039, 1045–1046 [no reasonable suspicion where the defendant ducked behind a car to hide from police in a high-crime area at night]

People v. Pantoja (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 483, 487, 490–491 [no reasonable suspicion for a pat-down where a nervous but cooperative person with a history of weapons arrests was detained on vehicle infractions in a high crime area while wearing baggy clothing]

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 357 [Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government’s endeavor to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular.]

Evidence, Fifth Amendment, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000780

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the detectives subjected defendant to a custodial interrogation. Their failure to advise him of his Miranda rights therefore required the suppression of his confession.

First Holding:

Under Miranda, suspects questioned by law enforcement after being taken into custody must first be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that any statements they make may be used against them, and that they have a right to the presence of an attorney. If police interrogate a suspect in custody without providing these advisements, the suspect’s responses cannot be admitted to establish their guilt.

Authority:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16

Second Holding:

The duty to advise suspects of their Miranda rights applies only if they are in custody. Custody is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion. In deciding if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, the question is whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. To answer this question, the court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16

Third Holding:

Relevant considerations include (1) who initiated the contact; (2) whether the person agreed to the interview; (3) whether the person was questioned as a witness or suspect; (4) the interview’s location; (5) whether police said the person was under arrest or in custody (6) conversely, whether they said the person was free to leave at any time; (7) whether the person’s movement was restrained; (7) the length of questioning; (8) the number of officers; (9) the degree of police control over the interrogation; (10) whether officers conveyed a belief in the person’s guilt and suggested they had incriminating evidence; (11) whether the tone was aggressive or accusatory; (12) whether police used interrogation tactics designed to pressure the person; and (13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

Fourth Holding:

The prosecution has the burden of proving a defendant was not in custody. We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence but independently decide if the interrogation was custodial.

(GARY Note: the court then described the events in detail that led the court to declare “Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation long before he received Miranda advisements.” Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not useful to recite the circumstances, because you cannot cite this case as an example of a finding that Miranda rights should have been given earlier. If an attorney wants to read the full opinion, I can provide it on request.)

Authority:

In re Anthony L. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 438, 445

Fifth Holding:

A confession held inadmissible by reason of having been obtained in violation of the prophylactic Miranda requirements is subject to a harmless-error standard of review specified in Chapman. Under that standard, we ask whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21-22

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

Sixth Holding:

The erroneous admission of defendant’s confession cannot be regarded as unimportant. A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. Confessions often operate as a kind of evidentiary bombshell which shatters the defense and are thus much more likely to be prejudicial.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296

People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 86

Seventh Holding:

We decline to consider defendant’s testimony at trial in assessing harmlessness. When an illegally obtained confession is erroneously admitted, the defendant’s testimony will not render the error harmless unless it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not take the stand in an attempt to mitigate the explosive impact of a confession which had left his case in ruin.

Authority:

People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 151

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000779

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the trial court’s true finding that defendant’s 2012 conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony for purposes of the strike prior and prior serious felony enhancements and remand the matter to the trial court for any retrial of this finding.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law, defendants previously convicted of serious or violent felonies are subject to increased prison terms: If a defendant has one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is doubled, and if a defendant has two or more such strike priors, the defendant may receive life imprisonment.

The Three Strikes law defines “serious or violent” felony to include any offense defined as a serious felony under section 1192.7(a). Section 1192.7(c) defines “serious felony” to include, among other things, “any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22.”

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill 333 amended section 186.22. Effective January 1, 2022, this legislation narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang, the definition of a pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern that have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Moreover, because these changes are ameliorative in nature, they apply to nonfinal judgments on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

Third Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the reviewing court determines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the elements of the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People must prove all elements of an alleged sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the mere fact of conviction under a particular statute does not prove the offense was a serious felony, otherwise admissible evidence from the entire record of the conviction may be examined to resolve the issue.

If the prior conviction was for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, and the record of the conviction does not disclose how the offense was committed, a court must presume the conviction was for the least serious form of the offense.

In such a case, if the statute under which the prior conviction occurred could be violated in a way that does not qualify for the alleged enhancement, the evidence is thus insufficient, and the People have failed in their burden.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, 1083

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065, 1067

Fourth Holding:

In Fletcher, our Supreme Court held that where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Accordingly, whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of Section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22. The matter must be remanded to the trial court for any retrial of these allegations, and if required, any resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Elements of crime, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000773

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000771

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury regarding specific intent for count 2, and the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the registration requirement, We reverse count 2 and strike the registration requirement, and in all other respects affirm.

First Holding:

Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct on every element of charged offenses. Instructions completely removing the issue of intent from the jury’s consideration may constitute a denial of federal due process principles. We review independently the legal adequacy of a jury instruction.

Authority:

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 673,

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1211

Second Holding:

The court instructed the jury that count 2 required “general criminal intent,” which is established when the defendant intentionally does a prohibited act.

This instruction was erroneous. The crime in count 2 is a specific intent crime because it requires the act to be done with the intent to accomplish a separate objective.

In addition, the instruction given on the crime was incomplete, because it included the statutory language for the prohibited conduct, but it omitted the requirement that the physical act be performed for a separate reason.

Specific intent is not presumed from the doing of the unlawful act.

Authority:

EVID 668

People v. ZarateCastillo (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1167 [construing equivalent language of a similar section]

Third Holding:

We assess the prejudicial effect of the failure to instruct regarding the required element of mental state pursuant to Chapman. We must reverse unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict.

Instructional error is harmless where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, but not where the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

In our view, the instructional error is not harmless because the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

Authority:

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

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 19

Fourth Holding:

Substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s order that the defendant register as a sex offender. Section 290.006 requires a defendant to register as a sex offender if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. Section 290.006 does not include sexual abuse as a basis for registration.

Authority:

PEN 290.006

Fifth Holding:

We review imposition of a registration requirement pursuant to section 290.006 for abuse of discretion. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence. Here, there was no evidence that the murder (count 1) was committed for sexual gratification. The registration requirement must be stricken.

If the defendant is retried on the reversed count by a properly instructed jury, the court may reconsider the registration requirement based on the evidence presented at that trial.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Sixth Holding:

Because sufficient evidence was presented that could support a guilty verdict if the jury were properly instructed, the People may retry the defendant for count 2 on remand.

Authority:

People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 271–272