People v. Favor
54 Cal. 4th 868
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant convicted of two counts of robbery as an aider and abettor and two counts of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
- Jury found the attempted murders willful, deliberate, and premeditated under Penal Code section 664(a).
- Dispute over whether premeditation must be a natural and probable consequence of the robbery for aider-abettor liability.
- Division-wide conflict: Cummins and Lee permit the approach; Hart urged requiring a premeditated natural-and-probable-consequence finding.
- Court of Appeal followed Cummins; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict; majority affirm in substance.
- Dissent would require a jury instruction on whether premeditated attempted murder as a separate element could be a natural and probable consequence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premeditation need be a natural consequence? | People relies on Cummins/Lee; no requirement for premeditation to be a natural consequence. | Hart contends premeditation must be a natural consequence of the robbery. | No; premeditated attempted murder need not be the natural consequence. |
| Is attempted premeditated murder a separate offense for N&PC purposes? | Lee/N&PC framework supports applying 664(a) to aiders/abettors without personal premeditation. | Hart/Woods would treat premeditation as a distinct requirement under N&PC. | Premeditation is not a separate degree/element under 664(a) for this context. |
| Does the omission to instruct require reversal? | Cummins-supported instruction was adequate; error not shown. | Failure to instruct on premeditated N&PC should be prejudicial. | Judgment affirmed; no reversible error found under the majority view. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2003) (premeditation penalty applies to all aiders and abettors; personal premeditation not required)
- People v. Cummins, 127 Cal.App.4th 667 (Cal. App. 2005) (natural and probable consequences suffices for premeditation under 664(a))
- People v. Hart, 176 Cal.App.4th 662 (Cal. App. 2009) (required instruction on premeditated N&PC; disapproved by majority)
- People v. Bright, 12 Cal.4th 652 (Cal. 1996) (premeditated attempted murder not a separate offense; 664(a) is a penalty provision)
- People v. Seel, 34 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2004) (Apprendi-era analysis; 664(a) as a greater punishment element affecting double jeopardy)
- People v. Woods, 8 Cal.App.4th 1570 (Cal. App. 1992) (lesser included/offense instruction analysis for accomplice liability)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (natural and probable consequences doctrine; foreseeability as fact issue)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2009) (foreseeability as factual issue resolved by jury)