107 Cal.App.5th 1280
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- In 1995, Lamar Love was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for the death of his two-year-old son, Gary, in Los Angeles County; he was the only person charged with the crime.
- The evidence at trial showed Gary suffered fatal blunt force abdominal trauma while in Love's care, and experts testified such injuries required a high degree of force not consistent with an accidental fall.
- The prosecution charged Love as the direct perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on felony murder, aiding and abetting, or any vicarious/imputed malice theory.
- In 2022, following legislative changes (Senate Bill Nos. 1437 & 775, now codified in Penal Code section 1172.6), Love petitioned for resentencing, arguing that the changes to murder liability law would make him ineligible for conviction under current standards.
- The trial court denied Love's petition at the prima facie stage, finding that the record showed he was the actual killer, not convicted under any now-abrogated theory of imputed malice or felony murder.
- Love appealed the denial, contending the jury instructions were confusing and may have permitted conviction without a malice finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Resentencing under § 1172.6 | Love is not eligible; jury convicted as actual killer, not under abrogated theory | Jury instructions were confusing, possibly permitting conviction w/o malice; jury could have used negligence standard or imputed malice from co-defendant | Not eligible; record and instructions show conviction as actual killer with malice, not under abrogated/imputed theory |
| Applicability of Abrogated Theories (e.g., natural/probable consequences, felony murder) | None applied at trial; no instructions on such theories | It's possible the jury convicted on these or that malice was imputed | No such instructions or theories present; conviction based on Love's own malice |
| Confusion Created by Jury Instructions | No confusion; murder and negligence standards clearly distinguished in instructions | Instructions on criminal negligence could have been applied to murder count, creating confusion | Instructions properly distinguished, no reasonable probability of confusion or improper conviction |
| Whether Record Allows Imputed Malice Given Evidence Sonya May Have Been Involved | No evidence of co-perpetrator or imputation of malice; instructions did not allow imputation from another | Sonya could have been responsible and jury may have imputed her conduct to Love | Record and instructions foreclose conviction under any theory of imputed malice; only Love prosecuted and convicted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (Senate Bill 1437 relief unavailable if defendant is actual killer)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (Process and standard for prima facie review of resentencing petitions)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (Natural and probable consequences doctrine applies only to aiders and abettors)
- People v. Sanchez, 26 Cal.4th 834 (Cal. 2001) (Presumption that jury understands and follows instructions)