People v. Langi
73 Cal.App.5th 972
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In 2007 Remus Langi was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and battery for a group attack in which Miguel Martinez died after being punched, falling, and suffering blunt head trauma.
- The jury acquitted Langi of felony murder but convicted him of second-degree murder; Langi received a 38-years-to-life sentence and his direct appeal was affirmed in an unpublished opinion (Langi I).
- Langi filed a Penal Code §1170.95 petition after SB 1437 and (later) SB 775, arguing his conviction may have rested on a theory that imputed malice based solely on participation (natural-and-probable-consequences or similar theory).
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, relying on the appellate opinion's language that Langi punched the victim and concluding Langi was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief.
- The Court of Appeal held that under People v. Lewis an appellate opinion is not necessarily conclusive on prima facie review, found the record does not conclusively show Langi was the actual killer, and identified ambiguity in the jury instructions that could have permitted imputed malice.
- The court reversed and remanded for an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Langi was the actual killer or personally acted with implied malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly relied on the prior appellate opinion to summarily deny the §1170.95 petition | Langi was convicted as the actual killer per the appellate opinion, so ineligible for §1170.95 relief | The prior opinion is not conclusive; the record allows that the jury may have convicted on an imputed-malice/aiding-and-abetting theory | Appellate opinion is not dispositive on prima facie review (per Lewis); record does not conclusively foreclose imputed-malice theory — remand for hearing |
| Whether the jury could have convicted under natural-and-probable-consequences or other imputed-malice theory due to the instructions given | Jury was instructed on implied malice; aider must share perpetrator's murderous intent, so imputation based solely on participation did not occur | Standard CALJIC aiding-and-abetting instructions were ambiguous and could permit conviction by imputing the perpetrator's implied malice to the aider without finding the aider's own implied malice | Instructions were potentially inadequate/ambiguous; cannot rule out that jurors imputed malice — evidentiary hearing required |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for relief under §1170.95 as amended by SB 1437/SB 775 | People argued Langi is ineligible because he was the actual killer | Langi argued he could have been convicted by imputed-malice theories covered by the amended statute | Because the record doesn't conclusively show actual-killer or personal implied malice, petitioner may be eligible; remand for resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (held SB 1437 bars second-degree murder convictions under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (appellate opinions are part of the record but not necessarily conclusive on prima facie §1170.95 review)
- People v. Powell, 63 Cal.App.5th 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (standard aiding-and-abetting instructions can be inadequate for implied-malice second-degree murder because they may not require the aider to personally harbor implied malice)
- People v. Offley, 48 Cal.App.5th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (SB 1437 did not change liability of direct aiders and abettors, but preexisting instructions may be insufficiently specific)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (appellate opinions may be considered part of the record of conviction but their probative value is case-specific)