People v. Campbell
233 Cal. App. 4th 148
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Aug. 20, 2010, Aaron Campbell arranged a marijuana transaction at Silvester Leyva’s home; Campbell took a bag of marijuana, pulled a gun, and got into vehicles; Xavier Fort fired shots toward the house and Leyva was killed.
- Campbell admitted he intended to “take” the marijuana and had a gun; Fort admitted he brought and fired a .357 but claimed he did not know of a planned robbery and fired in fear.
- A jury convicted both defendants of first‑degree murder and found a robbery‑murder special‑circumstance true; both were convicted of two robberies (victims: Leyva and De La Torre).
- The trial court instructed the jury only on first‑degree felony murder (robbery as the underlying felony); it did not give sua sponte instructions on lesser included offenses (second‑degree murder; voluntary/involuntary manslaughter).
- On appeal, Fort argued the court had a duty under the accusatory‑pleading test to instruct on lesser included offenses and that substantial evidence supported those lesser offenses; the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed Fort’s murder and robbery convictions (Campbell’s judgment affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offenses (2d‑deg. murder; manslaughter) when the information charged murder with premeditation and deliberation but prosecution tried felony murder only | AG: No duty because prosecution tried only felony‑murder theory; lesser offenses are not necessarily included in felony murder | Fort: The accusatory pleading charged malice murder with premeditation, so under the accusatory‑pleading test the court had to instruct on lesser included offenses if supported by evidence | Court: Accusatory‑pleading test applies; charging malice murder with premeditation triggers sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offenses when supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether there was substantial evidence supporting lesser offenses (so instruction required) | AG: Evidence pointed to felony murder and aider/abettor liability; no need for lesser instructions | Fort: His testimony and statements were substantial evidence that he did not know of or intend to aid the robbery and that he acted in an impulsive or defensive manner | Court: There was substantial evidence a jury could reasonably conclude Fort was guilty only of a lesser offense (2d‑deg. murder or voluntary manslaughter); instruction omission was error |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless given guilty robbery verdict and true special‑circumstance finding | AG: Harmless because the jury’s special‑circumstance and robbery findings show it necessarily would have reached felony‑murder verdict even if lesser options were given | Fort: Not harmless—because only felony murder was instructed, jury faced all‑or‑nothing choice and the special‑circumstance/robbery findings may reflect that pressure, not a deliberate felony‑murder conclusion | Court: Not harmless under state Watson standard—reasonable probability the jury would have returned a lesser verdict if properly instructed; reversed murder and robbery convictions |
| Whether sentencing stay of firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53(d)) on one robbery count was erroneous | AG: Enhancement applies to each crime so stay was error | Fort: People forfeited claim | Court: Did not decide sentencing issue because reversal allows retrial and resentencing; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (2013) (discusses accusatory‑pleading test and sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offenses)
- People v. Anderson, 141 Cal.App.4th 430 (2006) (holds accusatory pleading charging malice murder supports instructions on lesser offenses even if prosecution later pursues felony‑murder theory)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (1998) (defines substantial‑evidence standard for giving lesser‑included instructions)
- People v. Ramkeesoon, 39 Cal.3d 346 (1985) (reversed felony‑murder conviction where jury denied theft/lesser option and thus faced all‑or‑nothing choice)
- People v. Croy, 41 Cal.3d 1 (1985) (reversal of felony‑murder where aiding/abetting mens rea error on robbery undermined predicate)
- People v. Scott, 45 Cal.4th 743 (2009) (constructive possession and ‘‘special relationship’’ analysis for robbery victims)
- People v. Castaneda, 51 Cal.4th 1292 (2011) (explains when special‑circumstance findings may show harmlessness of omitted lesser‑offense instruction)
- People v. Banks, 59 Cal.4th 1113 (2014) (addresses interplay of theories and instructing on lesser included offenses)