43 Cal.App.5th 109
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner D.W., age 17 at the time, was charged in juvenile court with second‑degree murder based on the natural and probable consequences (N&P) theory after an adult companion stabbed a victim; D.W. admitted punching but denied knowledge of the stabbing.
- Juvenile court found probable cause for the alleged murder, adjudged D.W. unfit for juvenile treatment under Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(a) and transferred the case to adult court.
- After transfer, the Legislature (Senate Bill No. 1437) narrowed accomplice liability for murder by eliminating murder liability under the N&P doctrine; People v. Lopez applied that change to accomplice liability.
- D.W. sought a writ arguing the prima facie showing for the murder allegation no longer exists and thus he is entitled to a new transfer hearing; the People argued Proposition 57 and §707 changes eliminated the prima facie requirement and that the facts support probable cause for other offenses.
- The Court of Appeal held Proposition 57 did not eliminate the People’s prima facie burden, the fitness inquiry must be informed by the offense alleged in the petition, and remanded to vacate the transfer and allow the People to refile appropriate charging allegations for a new transfer hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437’s elimination of murder liability under N&P requires a new transfer hearing because the prima facie case for the alleged murder may no longer exist | D.W.: Yes — the People relied solely on N&P murder liability, which SB 1437 removed, so the prima facie case for the alleged offense fails | People: No — even if N&P murder is eliminated, transfer can proceed based on alternative theories or unalleged offenses, so no new hearing needed | Court: Granted relief; remanded to vacate transfer and allow People to refile proper allegations and re‑establish a prima facie case |
| Whether Proposition 57 / §707 eliminated the People’s obligation to make a prima facie showing of the offense alleged before transfer | D.W.: The prima facie requirement remains; due process requires opportunity to challenge sufficiency | People: Prop. 57 removed the presumption and thus the need to prove prima facie; prosecutors no longer must make that showing | Court: Rejected People; Prop. 57 did not remove the prima facie requirement; Judicial Council rule 5.766(c) preserves it |
| Whether probable cause for an unalleged nontarget offense (e.g., assault with a deadly weapon) can substitute for a prima facie case of the offense alleged (murder) for purposes of fitness | D.W.: No — fitness must be based on the offense alleged in the petition | People: Yes — same facts supporting N&P murder support probable cause for assault, so transfer consideration can proceed | Court: No — fitness analysis depends on the offense alleged; gravity (factor 5) must be evaluated for the alleged offense; cannot presume same weight if offense changed |
| Whether appellate court can supply findings that the People suggested (e.g., direct aiding and abetting, voluntary manslaughter) when the juvenile court made no such findings | D.W.: Argued insufficiency and lack of findings | People: Suggested alternative theories in briefs/footnotes | Court: Declined to make new factual findings on appeal; remand required so People may allege alternatives and prove prima facie case at a transfer hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Edsel P. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.3d 763 (1985) (requires People to make a prima facie showing when minor challenges sufficiency; probable cause and fitness are discrete)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (explains the natural and probable consequences doctrine for accomplice liability)
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (2019) (applies SB 1437 to eliminate accomplice murder liability under N&P doctrine)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (discusses Proposition 57 and the history of direct filing vs. transfer hearings)
- Rene C. v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App.4th 1 (2006) (addresses prima facie standard equivalence to probable cause and Edsel P. hearings)