55 Cal.App.5th 999
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Donald McDowell and Tyson Hutchison planned and carried out a home-invasion burglary/attempted robbery of meth dealer James Meehan; McDowell entered first and brandished a palm knife while Hutchison carried a .22 revolver.
- Hutchison fired a warning shot and then shot Meehan twice a few seconds later; Meehan died from the gunshot wounds.
- A jury convicted McDowell of first-degree murder, attempted robbery, and burglary, and found burglary-murder and robbery-murder special circumstances true; McDowell was sentenced to life without parole.
- After People v. Banks and People v. Clark, McDowell sought habeas relief arguing the evidence was insufficient under the then-new Banks/Clark standards; the California Supreme Court later sent the case back for reconsideration in light of In re Scoggins.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed the record under Banks/Clark/Scoggins and concluded substantial evidence supports the special-circumstance findings: McDowell was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural cognizability on habeas | McDowell: claim could have been raised on direct appeal; sufficiency claims are generally not cognizable on habeas | AG: petition is procedurally barred | Court invoked the Scoggins exception (new/clarifying law) and reached the merits; did not grant relief |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §190.2(d) special circumstances (major participant + reckless indifference) | McDowell: not a major participant; claims he didn’t know Hutchison had a gun, was briefly knocked down and had no real opportunity to intervene; analogies to Banks/Clark/Scoggins defendants | AG: McDowell planned and scouted the target, entered first armed and brandished a knife, was present when warning shot was fired and had opportunity to intervene; crime (home invasion of a drug dealer) carried obvious risk of lethal violence | Court held substantial evidence supports both that McDowell was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference; habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (framework of nonexclusive factors to assess whether an accomplice is a "major participant")
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (factors for assessing reckless indifference to human life under the special-circumstance statute)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (2020) (held special-circumstance finding reversed where defendant was absent and plan minimized risk; emphasized fact-intensive inquiry)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (Eighth Amendment requires major participation and reckless indifference for death-penalty/felony-murder liability)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (distinguishes minimal participants, e.g., getaway drivers, who lack requisite culpability for death eligibility)