People v. Barnum
D082890
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Joshua David Barnum was convicted of first degree murder after the killing of Sean Nixon at a gambling operation in San Diego, where Barnum provided security and had a minor managerial role.
- The incident involved a confrontation after an attempted robbery by Nixon, who was subsequently assaulted and killed by Barnum and two others (Glen and Alfredo Montano).
- The jury was instructed on two potential theories of first degree murder: felony murder (related to robbery of Nixon’s phone) and direct aiding and abetting (intentional murder).
- Barnum was convicted of first degree murder but the jury did not specify which theory it relied upon; he was also convicted on a separate firearm charge.
- Barnum appealed, arguing inadequate jury instructions on felony murder, specifically the omission of the independent felonious purpose rule, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for both theories.
Issues
| Issue | Barnum's Argument | People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to Instruct Jury on Independent Felonious Purpose for Felony Murder | The court should have instructed that robbery must not be merely incidental to the murder. | Not required for felony murder, only for felony-murder special circumstance; pattern instructions suffice. | No sua sponte duty; instructions were adequate as given. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence – Direct Aiding & Abetting | No evidence Barnum intended to kill or aided/encouraged murder. | Evidence shows Barnum assisted, encouraged, and facilitated murder. | Substantial evidence supported aiding and abetting theory. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence – Felony Murder | No evidence force was applied for purpose of taking Nixon’s phone, or that the murder was during robbery. | Theory not addressed because conviction upheld on aiding and abetting. | Court declined to decide due to lack of showing that jury relied on this theory. |
| Prejudice Standard in Mixed-Theory Verdict | Jury most likely relied on felony murder; prejudice should be presumed. | No affirmative showing the verdict rested on unsupported theory. | No reasonable probability jury relied solely on felony-murder theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2017) (distinction between felony murder and felony-murder special circumstance; independent felonious purpose rule)
- People v. Mora & Rangel, 5 Cal.5th 442 (Cal. 2018) (independent felonious purpose instruction not required on felony murder)
- People v. Suarez, 10 Cal.5th 116 (Cal. 2020) (pattern instructions adequate for felony murder; no sua sponte duty for special instruction)
- People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal. 1993) (prejudice standard for verdicts resting on potentially unsupported theories)
- People v. Montelongo, 55 Cal.App.5th 1016 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (independent felonious purpose rule for felony-murder special circumstance)