People v. Bradley, 65 Cal.App.5th 1022

Willie Bradley IV and Melvin Mason participated with a third person (Glass) in an armed attempt to rob L.V. and Robby Poblete in a Howard Johnson Inn parking lot; during the encounter Poblete was shot and killed.
All three participants wielded firearms; surveillance/video and eyewitness testimony placed Bradley and Mason at the scene and engaging the victims.
Defendants were convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder (they were not prosecuted as the actual killers) and Mason was also convicted of assault; both received prison terms and appealed.
On appeal defendants argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to show the requisite "reckless indifference to human life" for felony-murder liability under Penal Code § 189(e)(3), and (2) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that robbery (or attempted robbery) was a lesser included offense of felony murder.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the record, applied the Tison–Enmund/Banks–Clark–Scoggins framework for major participation and reckless indifference, and considered both the elements test and the accusatory-pleading test for lesser-included-offense instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendants acted with "reckless indifference to human life" (PC § 189(e)(3))	Evidence showed Bradley and Mason were armed, present, actively participating, had opportunity to restrain or prevent the killing, did not render aid, and did not minimize risk—supporting reckless indifference.	Evidence was insufficient because defendants did not kill, may not have expected to use their guns, interaction was brief, and they lacked specific knowledge the shooter would kill.	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports reckless indifference given weapons use, presence, active roles, failure to aid, and no risk-minimizing plan.
Duty to instruct robbery/attempted robbery as a lesser included offense of felony murder	Because SB 1437 requires proof of major participation and reckless indifference, attempted robbery cannot automatically convert to felony murder; robbery/attempted robbery should be available as lesser included offenses.	The information did not allege robbery as the predicate; robbery is not necessarily included in felony murder under the elements test (felony murder can be predicated on many felonies), and the accusatory pleading test looks only to the charging pleading.	Affirmed: court correctly declined instruction—robbery was not necessarily included under the elements test and the information did not allege robbery under the accusatory-pleading test.

Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (Eighth Amendment bars death sentence for aider/abettor who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend lethal force).
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (major participation plus reckless indifference can satisfy Enmund culpability).
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (adopted Tison/Enmund continuum; nonexclusive factors for major participation).
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (articulated factors to assess ‘‘reckless indifference to human life’’ and emphasized individualized fact-based inquiry).
In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (Cal. 2020) (reaffirmed Clark factors and required fact-intensive analysis).
People v. Bascomb, 55 Cal.App.5th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (presence, use of a gun, active facilitation, and flight without aid supported reckless-indifference finding).
People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) (describing elements and accusatory-pleading tests for lesser included offenses).