People v. Boror CA1/2, A160582

In 1969 Darel Carter was killed during a burglary/robbery; Rudolph Boror was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life with parole eligibility.
In March 2019 Boror petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437), arguing changes to felony‑murder law could make him ineligible for murder liability.
The trial court issued an order to show cause, held an evidentiary hearing, and advised the parties the People had the burden to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the hearing Boror testified denying he stabbed the victim; the trial court credited witnesses and found Boror was the actual killer, and alternatively a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
The trial court denied the § 1170.95 petition; Boror appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong legal standard at the evidentiary hearing.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court applied the correct standard — acting as an independent factfinder and requiring the People to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper legal standard at a § 1170.95(d)(3) evidentiary hearing to determine ineligibility	People: the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty under the amended statutes; court can act as independent factfinder	Boror: the court must apply a harmless‑error/Chapman approach — i.e., prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the original jury actually convicted on a still‑valid theory	Court: affirmed the independent‑factfinder approach; the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the petitioner is guilty under §§ 188/189 as amended; rejected the harmless‑error appellate‑type standard

In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (2020) (analysis of major‑participant and reckless‑indifference principles)
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (framework for aider/abettor and special‑circumstance analysis)
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (major‑participant/reckless indifference test)
People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.App.5th 227 (2020) (endorses trial‑court independent‑factfinder standard under § 1170.95(d)(3))
People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (2020) (advocated substantial‑evidence/appellate‑type review; created split later addressed by courts)
People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (2021) (rejected Duke’s approach; supports independent factfinder role)
People v. Clements, 60 Cal.App.5th 597 (2021) (criticized substantial‑evidence framing for § 1170.95 hearings)
People v. Lopez, 56 Cal.App.5th 936 (2020) (discusses retroactive relief under SB 1437 and jury‑trial implications)