Tag Archives: Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Jurisdiction, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000682

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to establish that one of the charged counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child based on sexual penetration took place within the jurisdiction of the superior court, and reverse the conviction on that count.

Holding:

There was insufficient evidence that more than one of the two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by sexual penetration occurred in a city in California, as opposed to Mexico.

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

The victim’s answers to the questions indicated that at least one of the incidents occurred in California, but did not exclude the possibility that the other occurred in Mexico, outside the superior court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514–515

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

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

Case 000671

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for sexual penetration by force upon a child.

First Holding:

To evaluate the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and then determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  

We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.

But we cannot, however, venture beyond the evidence presented at trial, and may consider only those inferences that are reasonably supported by the record. A reasonable inference may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. It must logically flow from other facts established in the action, and it cannot be based entirely on the suspicions of the officers involved in the case and the conjecture of the prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167–168

Second Holding:

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether retrial is permissible for purposes of double jeopardy, we must consider all of the evidence presented at trial, including evidence that should not have been admitted. Because the record contains no evidence that could support a reasonable inference that the defendant sexually penetrated the victim with a foreign object, insufficient evidence supports a verdict of guilt on that count. Double jeopardy bars retrial on that count.

Authority:

People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296

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

Third Holding:

When a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181(6)

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000663

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor.

First Holding:

The law governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is well established. In reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, we must 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. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses sufficient evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—supporting the decision, and not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Authority:

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638-639

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

Second Holding:

Under section 288.2(c), “harmful matter” is defined in section 313. Section 313(a) states that harmful matter means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

This definition is virtually identical to the constitutional standard of obscenity set forth in Miller. We conclude the record does not contain evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the video the defendant showed them minor was harmful matter within the meaning of section 288.2(a)(2) and section 313. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction, and we will reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15, 24

People v. Dyke (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1383

Third Holding:

Nudity or depictions of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity do not, by themselves, make a movie obscene.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1291

Fourth Holding:

The defendant may not be retried on this count.

Authority:

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

Discretion, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000657

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the medically eligible defendant’s petition for compassionate release under section 1172.2, because there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that there was an unreasonable risk that the defendant would commit a super strike.

First Holding:

The Penal Code imposes a presumption favoring compassionate release for medically-eligible individuals and, as to the risk of re-offense, requires an assessment not of whether a new crime would be theoretically possible, but whether there would be an unreasonable risk of a super strike as defined by the law. On this record, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant would commit a super strike if granted compassionate release. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition for compassionate release and direct the trial court to recall defendant’s sentence in accordance with section 1172.2.

Authority:

PEN 1172.2

Second Holding:

A superior court abuses its discretion when the factual findings essential to its decision lack evidentiary support. The superior court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

Third Holding:

Section 1172.2 authorizes a trial court to recall the sentence of an incarcerated person who is permanently medically incapacitated with a medical condition or functional impairment that renders them permanently unable to complete basic activities of daily living. If the trial court finds that an incarcerated person satisfies this criterion, the statute establishes a presumption favoring recall and resentencing that may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision section 1170.18(c), based on the incarcerated person’s current physical and mental condition.

Authority:

PEN 1172.2(b)(2)

Fourth Holding:

Under section 1170.18(c), an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a “super strike,” which includes any homicide or attempted homicide offense, any serious or violent felony offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, and certain sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

Fifth Holding:

After reviewing the evidence of the physical and mental condition of the defendant, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was capable of committing a super strike. The appellate court relied on Lewis, a case in which it was held to be an abuse of discretion to deny compassionate release on evidence that showed that the defendant perhaps had the capacity to commit a super strike, but that did not necessarily establish an unreasonable risk that he would commit such an offense.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 401, 407-409

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

Case 000624

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding unlawful detention or unlawful arrest. The judgment is reversed. Because there was sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could have returned the same verdict, double jeopardy principles do not apply and the matter may be retried.

First Holding:

All criminal defendants have the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.

A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.

Similarly, if the trial court decides to provide supplemental instruction to the jury during deliberation, we review de novo the legal accuracy of any supplemental instructions provided.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Parker (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1261, 1271

Second Holding:

Section 69 provides that every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment. Similarly, section 148(a)(1) prohibits resisting an officer in the performance of duty, though the resistance need not be forceful or violent.

Authority:

PEN 69

PEN 148

People v. Hupp (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 946, 950

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 22

Third Holding:

The lawfulness of an officer’s conduct is an essential element of both offenses because there is no distinction between performing a duty and lawfully performing a duty, since an officer who is acting unlawfully cannot be said to be performing his or her duty. And the prosecution has the burden of proving the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct is an essential element upon which the trial court had a sua sponte duty to properly instruct the jury.

Authority:

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 25

People v. Southard (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 424, 435

Fourth Holding:

To convict defendant of a violation of section 69 or 148, the prosecution was required to prove, and the jury was required to find, that officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. The pattern jury instructions include definitions for various scenarios in which an officer can be considered engaged in a lawful performance of duty, including during a detention, an arrest without a warrant, and an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. (CALCRIM 2670.)

However, the trial court did not give any of these definitions to the jury. Nor did the trial court offer its own definition for the jury to consider. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that it was required to find that the officers were engaged in a lawful performance of duty but provided no definitions or guidance to the jury regarding how to make this finding. This was clearly error.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 913 [Where a term or phrase has a special definition for purposes of a statute, the failure to define it for the jury is error.]

People v. Reyes (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1601 [Failure to define terms essential to an element of an offense is “equivalent to the omission of an element from the definition of the crime given to the jury.]

Fifth Holding:

The question of reasonable or probable cause is ordinarily one for the court and, where there are disputed facts to be resolved by a jury, the jury is to be told that if it finds the facts in a designated way such facts do or do not amount to probable cause.

Authority:

Roberts v. City of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 629-630

Sixth Holding:

Whether an offense has been committed in an officer’s presence is determined by whether the officer could testify to actual knowledge to every element of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Garrison (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 549, 557

In re Alonzo C. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 707, 714

People v. Welsch (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1044

Seventh Holding:

When the jury is misinstructed on an element of the offense reversal is required unless we are able to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, a reviewing court must determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. Here, we cannot say with any confidence that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed in this case.

Authority:

People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 348

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

Eighth Holding:

It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. However, a settled exception to this rule permitting retrial after a successful appeal occurs when a conviction has been reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence.

Thus, even where reversal is required based on instructional error, an appellant’s arguments regarding insufficiency of the evidence should be considered to determine whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles. The inquiry at this stage is to determine whether, if properly instructed, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852-853

People v. Wetle (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 375, 388

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 608-609;

In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 [Where instructional error occurs, retrial is barred if defendant can show there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction even when the law is properly construed.]

Ninth Holding:

While an offense may be considered a “wobbler” punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, its status as a wobbler has no bearing on the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest. This is because the commission of a wobbler is a felony at the time it is committed and remains deemed a felony unless charged as a misdemeanor by the People or reduced to a misdemeanor by the sentencing court.

Authority:

People v. Moomey (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 850, 857-858

People v. Statum (2002) 28 Cal.4th 682, 685

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

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000600

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the court to sentence the defendant on one count and stay punishment under section 654 on the two other counts.

First Holding:

Penal Code Section 654 prohibits a trial court from imposing multiple punishments when a defendant commits multiple offenses during an indivisible course of conduct directed toward a single objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 [If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one]

Second Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654

Third Holding:

The purpose of section 654 is to ensure a defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his or her culpability. That is, a jury can convict a defendant of multiple crimes arising from a single act, but a court can only punish the defendant for one of those crimes. If a court imposes concurrent sentences, then that sentence constitutes double punishment within the meaning of section 654. A course of criminal conduct is a single “act” for purposes of section 654 if all of the offenses committed during the course of conduct were incident to one objective.

Authority:

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 887

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19

Fourth Holding:

It is defendant’s intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Fifth Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

Sixth Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses. Substantial evidence means that evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Authority:

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

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

Seventh Holding:

Under section 654, a defendant cannot be punished for both a robbery, and a kidnapping for the purpose of that same robbery.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639

Eighth Holding:

There is not substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implied (unstated) finding that the defendant formed (1) a separate intent and objective to commit a kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and then (2) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a carjacking, and then (3) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a robbery of the pharmaceuticals.

Authority:

People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [there must be evidence to support a finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced]

Ninth Holding:

On remand, the trial court is directed to impose a sentence for only one of the three convictions, and then stay the sentence on the other two crimes under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469 [to implement section 654, the trial court must impose sentence on all counts, but stay execution of sentence as necessary to prevent multiple punishment]

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

Case 000595

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of a sexual nature against children. There was insufficient evidence to support one of the counts. Six other counts are reversed because of a prejudicial error on their verdict forms for those counts (listing the descriptions of the crimes but incorrectly identifying the section number, thus possibly confusing the jury because there was another count that correctly bore that section number and the jury was instructed on its elements, which it may have incorrectly relied on for its verdicts in the erroneous verdict forms).

First Holding:

A conviction must be supported by substantial evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion for abuse of discretion. The California Constitution provides that no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The effect of this provision is to eliminate any presumption of injury from error and to require that the appellate court examine the evidence to determine whether the error did in fact prejudice the defendant.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. VI, sec. 13

People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328

People v. Jacobs (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1346

Third Holding:

Under the applicable prejudice standard, an erroneous verdict form is harmless if it is unmistakably clear under the totality of the circumstances that the jury intended to convict the defendant of the crime charged.

Authority:

People v. Camacho (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272

Fourth Holding:

A prosecutor’s statement of facts not in evidence constitutes misconduct.

Authority:

People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 212