People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830

Background

Defendant Joseph Gentile was tried for the beating death of Guillermo Saavedra; jury was instructed on three theories including direct perpetration, direct aiding-and-abetting, and the natural-and-probable-consequences (N&P) theory (that death was a foreseeable consequence of aiding an assault).
Jury convicted Gentile of first-degree murder but did not find personal use of a deadly weapon; Court of Appeal reversed the first-degree conviction because Chiu prohibited N&P liability for premeditated murder and it was probable the jury relied on the N&P theory.
Prosecution accepted reduction to second-degree murder on remand; Gentile appealed, arguing Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) abolished N&P murder liability for second degree and should be applied retroactively.
SB 1437 (effective Jan 1, 2019) amended Penal Code §188 to require that, except for felony murder, a murder conviction requires the principal to act with malice aforethought and added §1170.95 providing a petition process for retroactive relief.
The Supreme Court held SB 1437 bars second-degree murder convictions grounded on the N&P doctrine and that §1170.95 is the exclusive mechanism for retroactive relief; it reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded (leaving open §1170.95 relief).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Gentile)	Held
Does SB 1437 eliminate second-degree murder liability under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine?	AG agreed the statute bars N&P murder liability and argued any instructional error was harmless here.	SB 1437 eliminates N&P murder liability for both first and second degree.	Yes. SB 1437 §188(a)(3) requires personal malice; N&P (which imputes malice) cannot support second-degree murder.
Do SB 1437’s ameliorative provisions apply retroactively on direct appeal to nonfinal convictions, or must defendants use §1170.95?	Relief is available only via §1170.95; ameliorative changes are not applied on direct review to nonfinal judgments.	Under Estrada, the new law should apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases on direct review.	§1170.95 is the exclusive avenue; ameliorative provisions do not automatically apply on direct appeal to nonfinal judgments.
Should a “hybrid” N&P doctrine (foreseeability + proof of personal malice) be adopted to preserve some N&P reach?	AG and Court reject hybrid as confusing and unlikely intended by Legislature.	San Diego DA urged a hybrid to capture certain dangerous conduct.	Rejected. Court requires direct proof of personal malice (or other applicable theories like direct aiding/abetting, felony murder, substantial-factor causation).
What is the appropriate remedy for Gentile’s conviction given these holdings?	AG argued instructional error was harmless.	Gentile sought reversal or application of SB 1437 on appeal.	Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded to affirm Gentile’s second-degree conviction without prejudice to any §1170.95 petition; Gentile may seek relief under §1170.95.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (held N&P doctrine cannot support first‑degree premeditated murder)
People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (explains direct aiding-and-abetting mens rea and N&P doctrine distinction)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (held resentencing mechanism can be exclusive remedy, limiting Estrada application)
People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (similar rule on retroactivity where statute provides specific procedural remedy)
People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (Cal. 2018) (on resentencing schemes and Apprendi concerns)
People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (Cal. 2018) (defines implied malice standard for murder)
People v. Jennings, 50 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2010) (discusses causation doctrines including substantial-factor approach)
People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (addresses felony-murder and causation principles)