People v. Duke
55 Cal.App.5th 113
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Jonathan Duke, a Rollin’ 60s gang member, participated in a group confrontation where codefendant Crowder stabbed Victor Enriquez 15 times; witnesses placed Duke at the gate, with testimony that Duke and Crowder carried knives and Duke encouraged retaliation and offered to get a gun.
- Original jury was instructed on direct aiding-and-abetting and the natural-and-probable-consequences (NPC) doctrine; Duke was convicted of first-degree murder, then on appeal the conviction was conditionally reversed because NPC could have supported the verdict and Chiu later precluded NPC as a basis for first-degree murder.
- The prosecution accepted a reduction to second-degree murder; Duke was resentenced to 15 years-to-life and later filed a petition under Penal Code § 1170.95 after SB 1437 abolished NPC liability for murder and narrowed felony-murder liability.
- The trial court found Duke made a prima facie showing, held a full § 1170.95 hearing, but denied relief after concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Duke could still be convicted of murder under the amended law.
- Duke argued the trial court erred by analyzing the case under the felony-murder framework (§ 189, subd. (e)) rather than NPC/direct-aid theories; the Court of Appeal acknowledged that error but affirmed because the record shows Duke acted with express malice and thus remains convictable under amended § 188.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by treating Duke's conviction as felony murder when the prosecution relied on NPC/direct aiding theories | Prosecution: the court's felony-murder analysis supported denial because it showed Duke met statutory felony-murder categories | Duke: trial court misapplied the law by analyzing felony murder when the record implicated NPC and direct aiding, not felony murder | Court: Error acknowledged but harmless — wrong framework used but ultimate finding supported denial |
| Whether Duke is ineligible for resentencing under § 1170.95 because he could still be convicted under the amended statutes | Prosecution: beyond a reasonable doubt Duke could still be convicted (e.g., acted with intent to kill / was a major participant with reckless indifference) | Duke: SB 1437 eliminated NPC liability and the evidence does not show express malice or the required felony-murder predicates | Court: Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Duke could be convicted under amended law (sufficient evidence of express malice / intent to kill) |
| Whether the trial court's error in legal framing prejudiced Duke's § 1170.95 rights | Prosecution: no prejudice because evidence supports murder conviction under the correct standards | Duke: framing error was legally significant and requires relief | Court: No prejudice — the court’s ultimate factual finding (express malice/intent) is supported by the record, so denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (NPC doctrine cannot support first-degree murder)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (describing NPC aiding-and-abetting liability)
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (express malice and aiding principles)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (substantial-evidence standard described)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (discussing SB 1437’s elimination of NPC for murder)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (same: SB 1437 effect on NPC liability)