Category Archives: Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000613

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In decided the transfer the juvenile’s case to adult court, the court erred in evaluating whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and based its decision at least in part on unreliable data presented by a prosecution witness. We remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the second criterion under section 707(a)(3)(B), consistent with this opinion, whetherthe minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction.

In addition, the court is to make a finding whether, in light of all five statutory criteria, the People have met their burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the minor. is not amenable to rehabilitation.

First Holding:

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(1), when a minor 16 years or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may make a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The clear and convincing evidence standard demands a degree of certainty greater than that involved with the preponderance standard, but less than what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt Where clear and convincing proof is required, the proponent must convince the jury or judge that it is highly probable that the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(1)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211 and fn. 2

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Second Holding:

There are five criteria set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 that a court is required to consider in deciding whether a minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, including ((1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

For each of these five criteria, section 707 provides a nonexhaustive mandatory list of factors to which a juvenile court shall give weight in evaluating the criterion.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)(A)-(E)

Third Holding:

Under the second factor, the court must focus on whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while the minor is still eligible to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 166

Fourth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. 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 juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.

The juvenile court’s ultimate finding that a minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is likewise reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. Cardenas (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 102, 119

Fifth Holding:

Because the juvenile court must make these findings by clear and convincing evidence, we review its findings by determining whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by the clear and convincing evidence standard. The juvenile] court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161-162

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000611

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to instruct the jury about how a defendant who is an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense.

First Holding:

The defendant’s defense was self-defense, and the trial court accordingly instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense under CALCRIM No. 505. Over his objection, the trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 regarding an initial aggressor’s right to self-defense. However, the trial court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3471 about how an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense. Omission of that language was prejudicial error. Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

Second Holding:

A trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. This includes a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense if it appears the defendant is relying on such a defense or if substantial evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Third Holding:

It is error to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39–40

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331

People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982

Fourth Holding:

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends the defendant forfeited his contention that it was error to omit the language on how an initial aggressor can regain his right to self defense, because he failed to ask the trial court to include the omitted language. Assuming forfeiture applies, we nonetheless may decline to apply it if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Because the contention affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider it.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 [party may not complain on appeal that instruction correct in law and responsive to evidence was too general or incomplete in absence of request for clarifying language]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Fifth Holding:

When a defendant engages in simple assault or trespass and his opponent responds with deadly force so suddenly that the person cannot withdraw, a defendant may immediately use deadly force in self-defense. The qualification in the language omitted from the jury instruction thus applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. But if one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launch a deadly counterattack in self-defense, the original assailant cannot slay his adversary in self-defense unless he has first, in good faith, declined further combat, and has fairly notified him that he has abandoned the affray.

Authority:

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 301

People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 626–627

People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal. 451, 464 [Where one is the first wrongdoer, but his unlawful act is not felonious, as a simple assault upon the person of another, or a mere trespass upon his property, even though forcible, and this unlawful act is met by a counter assault of a deadly character, the right of self-defense to the first wrongdoer is not lost]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 196, 201

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 249-250 [exception did not apply where defendant approached victim with cocked gun]

Sixth Holding:

We apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Chapman to determine whether the error merits reversal. The Chapman standard requires us to determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. We must reverse the conviction under that standard unless we conclude that no rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial court could have had a reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant, absent the instructional error.

Authority:

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

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 303

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 953

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 244

Seventh Holding:

Simple assault requires an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to another person, and the crime does not require actual physical injury or contact to the victim.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 503

Eighth Holding:

An instruction is inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case if it requires acknowledging, if only inferentially, existence of facts which defendant otherwise denied. The language omitted from the instruction was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1168–1169

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [trial court has no duty to instruct on affirmative defense inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case]

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000608

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The denial of the defendant’s motion for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the court is directed to grant the petition. After examination of all the evidence, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support any theory today under which the defendant coould be convicted of murder.

First Holding:

The defendant was the assigned getaway driver who was not present in the building where the robbery took place. A bystander was killed by the police during the confrontation between the other defendants and the police. The defendant entered a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder. First degree implied malice murder is not a valid theory of conviction for an accomplice under the provocative act theory of murder; the accomplice must harbor express malice–the specific intent to kill–in order to be properly convicted of first degree murder under this theory.

Authority:

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 662

Second Holding:

The felony murder rule is not applicable where the killing was committed by a third party (e.g., police officer) who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. Because the felony murder rule is not applicable to these facts, the Banks/Clark inquiry as to the degree of defendant’s participation in the robbery and whether he displayed reckless indifference to human life during the course of the robbery is also inapplicable.

The provocative act murder doctrine arose as an alternative to felony-murder liability in circumstances where the killing was committed by a third party who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. A provocative act murder case necessarily involves at least three people—the perpetrator of the underlying offense, an accomplice, and a victim of their crime.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 849, 861, 866

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522

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

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 727

Third Holding:

SB 1437, which took effect on January 1, 2019, limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, to ensure that a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her individual criminal culpability.

Authority:

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-844

Fourth Holding:

This court will ignore the findings purportedly made by the trial court following the remand from the court in the earlier appeal, as they were outside the scope of the remittitur. The remittitur defines the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction to act, and action which does not conform to the reviewing court’s directions is unauthorized and void. Trial courts are bound by the directions given by a reviewing court and have no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings; the court’s authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 755

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Fifth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The requisite malice may be express or implied. Murder is committed with implied malice 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.

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 defendant’s life-endangering act must proximately cause the victim’s death and to suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

A relevant life-endangering act is one that proximately causes the victim’s death. It is an act or omission that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural and probable consequence of the act or omission the death of the victim and without which the death would not occur.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988-989

People v. Cervantes (2016) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866

Sixth Holding:

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.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act.

The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

The direct aider and abettor must, therefore, act with intent to aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that proximately causes the death. 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.

The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder or life-endangering act and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 311

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

Eighth Holding:

We remand the case with directions to grant the petition and resentence defendant on the underlying offense of robbery.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137, fn. 3 [Granting the petition for resentencing, as opposed to ordering a new evidentiary hearing, may be the appropriate remedy where a petitioner successfully demonstrates no substantial evidence supports the denial of a section 1172.6 petition even considering erroneously admitted evidence at an evidentiary hearing]

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000606

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury found the defendant guilty of two felonies (maintaining a place for the purpose of using, selling, or giving away a controlled substance and felon in position of ammunition) and several misdemeanors (possession of cocaine, cultivating more than six marijuana plants, and possession of marijuana).

We conclude that two felony convictions must be reversed, the fee and assessment imposed for the possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana conviction must be reversed, either the possession of marijuana misdemeanor or the cultivating more than six marijuana plants misdemeanor must be stayed pursuant to section 654, and the four clerical errors in the judgment must be corrected.

First 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 which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Appellate courts presume in support of the judgment every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Appellate courts also properly consider erroneously admitted evidence, notwithstanding the erroneous admission. Appellate courts do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts. A judgment will not be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence merely because the circumstances may also be reasonably reconciled with a conclusion contrary to the judgment.

Authority:

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

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 820

People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 749

Second Holding:

Every person who opens or maintains any place for the purpose of unlawfully selling, giving away, or using any controlled substance as identified in particular sections of the Health and Safety Code shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or the state prison. Because of the disjunctive “or,” section 11366 does not require that the place be maintained for the purpose of selling; it can be violated without selling, merely by providing a place for drug abusers to gather and share their experience.

Section 11366 proscribes continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance; a single or isolated instance of this forbidden conduct is insufficient. Further, section 11366 is violated by selling or giving away to others, or allowing others to use, a controlled substance in a place maintained or opened for that purpose; it is not violated by an individual’s repeated personal use of a controlled substance at his home.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 716, 718

People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1102-1103 and fn. 2

People v. Green (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 538, 544

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 490, 492

Third Holding:

In determining whether a place is opened or maintained for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance, the trier of fact should consider the surrounding circumstances, including: the quantity of any controlled substance discovered; the character of the place opened or maintained; how the place is fitted up; whether other individuals visited the place in unusual numbers or at unusual times; whether other individuals who were under the influence of a controlled substance were found at the place; whether lookouts were posted near or at the place; whether a password or passcode was needed for entry into the place; any pertinent statements by the defendant or those found at the premises; and whether any drug paraphernalia or drug residue was found in the place.

However, the quantity of controlled substance discovered at a place is alone insufficient to show that the place was maintained or opened for the purpose of continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 726

People v. Hawkins (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 675, 683

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491-492

People v. Cannon (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 163, 168

Fourth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11366 prohibits opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, using, or giving away a controlled substance; it does not prohibit opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of growing or cultivating a controlled substance/marijuana. (Cf. sec. 11366 with 11358 [prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana]; 11366.5 [prohibiting individuals from making available a premises for the manufacture of a controlled substance]; cf. also Dowl [describing separate criminal provisions that are exempt from prosecution pursuant to the Medical Marijuana Program of sec. 11362.7 et seq.]

Authority:

People v. Dowl (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1079, 1086

Fifth Holding:

Section 11366 requires that a controlled substance be sold, used, or given away at the place maintained for such a purpose. Section 11366 simply does not address controlled substances that are sold, used, or given away at a location other than the place, even if the controlled substance is produced at the place. Accordingly, Shoals and related considerations do not support the conclusion that the instant property was used for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana to others.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491 [The prosecution must prove that appellant opened or maintained the hotel room for the purpose of selling the cocaine base.]

People v. Holland (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 583, 588 [There is no evidence that this barbecue stand was opened for the prohibited purpose.]

Sixth Holding:

A conviction cannot be constitutionally sustained on the basis of a theory that was not actually presented to the jury. Here, the instructions informed the jury that the controlled substance at issue was cannabis; cocaine was not mentioned. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction cannot be sustained based on the cocaine discovered at the property. In sum, the evidence shows the property was used to grow, cultivate, and process marijuana, but that is all. Substantial evidence does not support the section 11366 conviction because there is insufficient evidence that the defendant maintained the property for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana at the property.

Authority:

Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 314

Cole v. Arkansas (1948) 333 U.S. 196, 202

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 251

People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313, 340

People v. Garcia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 525

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession of ammunition. His prior felony under section 11359 was reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed. As a result of the resentencing and sealing, the prior felony is no longer a felony and cannot be used to support the defendant’s conviction. Because he has no other prior felony convictions, conviction on that count is unsupported and must be reversed.

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 64, which, among other things, generally reduced marijuana-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including the offense of possession under section 11359. Proposition 64 also added section 11361.8, which provides a mechanism to obtain relief for those currently serving a sentence, or for those who had completed a sentence, for a marijuana offense affected by Proposition 64. For those qualifying defendants who have completed a sentence, the court shall redesignate the conviction as a misdemeanor or infraction or dismiss and seal the conviction as legally invalid.

Further, the Legislature has provided that a conviction that has been ordered sealed pursuant to section 11361.8 is deemed never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events. The parties agree that, because the defendant had his prior felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 64 and sealed, he was no longer a felon in possession of ammunition, and the count must be reversed.

Authority:

HSC 11361.8

HSC 11361.9

People v. Smit (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 596, 599, 600

People v. Jessup (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 83, 88

People v. Saelee (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 744, 751

People v. Taylor (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 115, 120, fn. 3.

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 654 provides in part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.

Section 654 may apply to an indivisible course of criminal conduct involving violations of different statutes, where the defendant commits the violations with a single intent and objective. It has been held that section 654 applies to prevent a defendant from being punished for both possession of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana where the possession was merely incidental to the cultivation.

A court’s implicit or express finding that a defendant harbored different intents and objectives for purposes of section 654 is reviewed for substantial evidence. The parties agree, and we concur, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored different intents and objectives with respect to counts 6 and 7, cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana. The court must stay the sentence on one of the two counts.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 736–737

People v. McDaniel (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 475, 485–486

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214

Ninth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11372.7–which imposes a drug program fee for violation of its chapter–expressly excludes section 11357(b), possession of more than an ounce of marijuna, from its application. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the fee under that that section, and it must be stricken, along with other fees that came into play based on that improperly imposed assessment.

Authority:

HSC 11372.7(e)

Tenth Holding:

The minute order contains several errors that must be corrected: (1) with respect to count 2 at page 3, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (2) with respect to count 2 at page 4, the minute order identifies the amount of penalty assessments as $3,210 instead of $310; (3) with respect to count 1 at page 5, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (4) with respect to count 5 at pages 5 and 6, all fees and penalties are improper because they were not imposed as part of the oral pronouncement of sentence.

A trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment in a criminal case, and to the extent there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and a minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement will control. Reviewing courts on appeal may correct any discrepancy that exists between a trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a minute order or abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

Amelioration, Evidence, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000601

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding the defendant is guilty of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, under a still-valid theory, and reversal for resentencing is unwarranted. As for the defendant’s evidentiary challenges, however, we hold the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting and relying on the grand jury transcript and police reports. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s order, and remand the matter for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

SB 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, 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. It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability. Through section 1172.6, it provided a means of relief for those whose convictions would no longer be considered murder under the revised law.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

In the context of an appeal from a criminal conviction where substantial evidence does not support a conviction, the remedy is generally not a new trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is considered by examining the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and deciding whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence erroneously admitted is properly considered in weighing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, notwithstanding its erroneous admission.

Authority:

People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 271–272 [the federal and California Constitutions preclude retrial if a court determines the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction as a matter of law]

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 311

Third Holding:

The reason for this is that a reversal based solely on evidentiary insufficiency has fundamentally different implications, for double jeopardy purposes, than a reversal based on such ordinary trial errors as the incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence. While the former is in effect a finding that the government has failed to prove its case against the defendant, the latter implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but is simply a determination that he has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect.

Thus, as a general rule, it is well established that if the defendant secures on appeal a reversal of his conviction based on trial errors other than insufficiency of evidence, he is subject to retrial.

Authority:

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 6

Fourth Holding:

Although principles of double jeopardy are not implicated in the voluntary section 1172.6 petition process, an insufficient evidence claim, coupled with additional challenges to the admission of evidence, may give rise to an issue of remedy.

If, considering the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment, there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, it signals a substantive failure of proof by the government much like it does in the context of a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, suggesting reversal for resentencing is the appropriate remedy. Under 1172.6(d)(3) if the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof, the petitioner shall be resentenced.

Authority:

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1068

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 875, 896 [directing resentencing be granted on remand where insufficient evidence supported denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing]

Fifth Holding:

On the other hand, a prejudicial procedural error (such as an evidentiary error), on its own, typically signals nothing about whether the petitioner is or is not guilty of murder under the law as amended by SB 1437, but points only to a flawed judicial process. In cases involving only this latter situation, remand for a new evidentiary hearing is ordinarily the appropriate remedy. This remedy is especially apt in the context of section 1172.6, which was created by the Legislature as an act of lenity.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137 & fn. 3 [in the absence of a substantial evidence challenge, prejudicial evidentiary errors warrant remand for a new evidentiary hearing rather than remand for resentencing]

People v. Lopez-Barraza (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1255 [remanding for a new evidentiary hearing where trial court impermissibly relied on evidence admitted at the petitioner’s trial that contradicted jury findings]

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1062–1063 [conditionally reversing denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after evidentiary hearing to permit the trial court to reconsider discovery motion, and to order a new evidentiary hearing if additional evidence disclosure was warranted]

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1067–1068 [sentence modification procedure under sec. 1172.6 is an entirely voluntary process and constitutes an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution]

Sixth Holding:

The grand jury transcript is not admissible under section 1172.6(d)(3)’s exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116

Seventh Holding:

Since Davenport and Cody, appellate courts have considered whether section 1172.6(d)(3)’s hearsay exception extends to transcripts from grand jury proceedings. In Ocobachi, the court held it did not. The court explained the existing hearsay exception for former testimony found in Evidence Code section 1291 requires a showing of witness unavailability) and that the party against whom the former testimony was offered had been given the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Unlike former testimony given during a petitioner’s preliminary hearing or original trial, Ocobachi pointed out the person investigated at a grand jury proceeding is not a party but a target who has no right to appear or offer evidence at grand jury proceedings. Thus, unlike in Davenport and Cody, admitting a transcript of grand jury testimony under section 1172.6(d)(3) would require ignoring both provisions of Evidence Code section 1291, creating an overbroad hearsay exception. In contrast, Robinson [review granted] concluded that the grand jury transcript may be considered at the section 1172.6 hearing.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158–1159

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 103

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1183

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted Feb. 26, 2025, S288606

Eighth Holding:

The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. We consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part, giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989–990

Ninth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are not adjudicative, unlike hearings and trials in a criminal proceeding, nor are they adversarial. Rather, they are investigatory proceedings: a judicial officer does not typically preside over grand jury proceedings; a defendant does not receive notice of grand jury proceedings; and a defendant has no right to appear, offer evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. Despite similarities in their function, unlike preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings are one-sided investigatory proceedings.

Authority:

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 824

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 595

Tenth Holding:

It would be anomalous for the Legislature to have amended the statute under SB 775 to tighten the evidentiary rules by excluding preliminary hearing testimony under section 872(b) [which allows a magistrate to find probable cause at a preliminary hearing based on the testimony of a qualified law enforcement officer that would otherwise be excluded as inadmissible hearsay], which is subject to cross-examination, but not exclude similar section 939.6(c), testimony received at a grand jury proceeding, which is untested by cross-examination.

Authority:

People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101 [in construing statutes, courts should strive to avoid anomalous results]

Eleventh Holding:

We agree with the parties that the police reports and related witness statements collected by the police are hearsay because they were created out of court and were offered (and considered) for the truth of the matter asserted. These documents also contain out-of-court statements of witnesses that constitute another layer of hearsay when offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

While there may be an applicable exception for some of the information contained in the police reports, there must also be a hearsay exception for out-of-court witness statements recorded in the documents that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted. Many of the findings taken from the police reports involved nonparty witness statements recorded by the police that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but no hearsay exception was identified

Authority:

EVID 1200(a)[hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove that its assertion is true]

People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 831, 844–845 [arrest report admissible under official records exception to hearsay rule to the extent it reported an act, condition, or event observed by law enforcement pursuant to Evid. Code sec. 1280]

Walker v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 177, 192 [observing the general rule that each level of out-of-court statements in documents such as probation and police reports must fall under a hearsay exception to be admitted into evidence]

Twelfth Holding:

Judicial notice extends only to notice of the document’s existence, not necessarily to the truth of the facts contained within a document. Judicial notice of a document is not a vehicle for the admission of hearsay contained within the document.

Authority:

People v. Moore (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 168, 178

People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 458–459 [the fact that a document may be judicially noticed under Evid. Code sec. 452 does not mean all the hearsay statements within the document are admissible or noticeable]

Thirteenth Holding:

Prejudice is shown where it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.

Authority:

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

Fourteenth Holding:

On other questions the defendant has asked us to address, we decline to do so in light of the remand and reversal. As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Authority:

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084