People v. Johnson
57 Cal. 4th 250
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Three defendants (Johnson, Dixon, Lee), active members of a large Bakersfield gang (Country Boy Crips), participated in multiple retaliatory shootings that killed two civilians and wounded others.
- Prosecutors charged each with first‑degree murder (special circumstances), attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, active gang participation (Pen. Code §186.22(a)), and a single conspiracy count alleging conspiracy to commit assault, robbery, murder, and gang participation (Pen. Code §182).
- Jury convicted on all counts, including conspiracy; heavy determinate and indeterminate sentences followed.
- The Court of Appeal held conspiracy to commit active gang participation was not a cognizable offense, but affirmed conspiracy convictions based on alternative theories (e.g., conspiracy to commit murder).
- The Attorney General sought review asking whether one may conspire to actively participate in a criminal street gang; the California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one can conspire to commit the offense of active gang participation (§186.22(a)) | The Attorney General: yes—§182 criminalizes conspiracy to commit “any crime,” so conspiracy to violate §186.22(a) is valid and consistent with STEP Act purposes | Defendants: no—conspiracy to commit active gang participation is conceptually incoherent or redundant (would require agreeing to possess knowledge/active status); Wharton’s Rule or§182.5 indicate it’s precluded | Yes. A traditional conspiracy to commit §186.22(a) is a valid offense when active, knowing gang participants agree to willfully promote/further/assist felonious conduct and an overt act occurs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morante, 20 Cal.4th 403 (discusses conspiracy mens rea and overt‑act requirement)
- People v. Homick, 55 Cal.4th 816 (conspiracy principles in California)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (elements of §186.22(a))
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (STEP Act purpose; gang crimes need not be gang‑motivated)
- Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (Wharton’s Rule and scope of conspiracy law)
- Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (gist of conspiracy is the agreement defining its objects)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (single agreement can support multiple conspiracy objects)
- People v. Swain, 12 Cal.4th 593 (conspiracy punished independently of substantive offense)
- People v. Zamora, 18 Cal.3d 538 (definition and purpose of overt‑act requirement)