Error and/or relief
The defendant appealed from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the lower court because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding defendant aided and abetted the murder of the officer.
First Holding:
In this instance, the appellate court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant aided and abetted the murder.
Authority:
SB 1437
People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830
People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 869
Second Holding:
A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition is reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988
Third Holding:
Under a direct aider and abettor liability theory, the prosecution must prove the person who is not the actual killer engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to aid and abet the target crime of murder.
Authority:
People v. Pacheco (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 118, 124
Fourth Holding:
Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea.
Authority:
People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713
Fifth Holding:
It is well settled that aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action.
Authority:
People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868
Sixth Holding:
A person present at the scene of a crime—even one who is the criminal’s companion, knows a crime is being committed, fails to prevent it, and later expresses approval of it—is not guilty of aiding and abetting the crime if he takes no action to aid or encourage the crime.
Authority:
In re K.M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 323, 329