87 Cal.App.5th 1257
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2001 the victim was found stabbed; Reynaldo Maldonado was tried and convicted of first-degree murder in 2013; the jury was instructed on premeditated murder, lying-in-wait murder, and direct aiding and abetting, but not on felony murder or the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
- The jury convicted Maldonado of first-degree murder but found the lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegation not true.
- At trial Maldonado admitted photographing the body and helping bury evidence but denied stabbing the victim; prosecution presented evidence tying him to the scene and to buried items.
- In 2020 Maldonado filed a petition under Penal Code § 1172.6 (former § 1170.95) seeking resentencing; the trial court summarily denied the petition as conclusively refuted by the record.
- On appeal Maldonado argued the aiding-and-abetting and implied-malice instructions (CALCRIM No. 401 and No. 520) could have allowed the jury to impute malice based solely on participation (an impermissible theory after SB 1437 and SB 775).
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding Maldonado made a prima facie showing that the jury could have convicted on an imputed-malice theory and directing issuance of an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maldonado made a prima facie showing under § 1172.6 that his murder conviction might rest on a theory that imputes malice based solely on participation | The record (instructions, verdicts, prosecutor’s argument) conclusively shows conviction was not based on imputed malice, so petition properly denied | Jury instructions and verdict do not conclusively refute that jury may have convicted on an imputed-malice theory via aiding-and-abetting of lying-in-wait | Maldonado made a prima facie showing; remand for order to show cause and evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether standard aiding-and-abetting instructions (CALCRIM No. 401) are ambiguous or ill-suited for implied-malice lying-in-wait murder | Distinguishes prior cases as involving second-degree murder; here first-degree lying-in-wait requires a higher mental state so ambiguity is immaterial | CALCRIM 401 fails to require the aider to personally know the act was dangerous and to act with conscious disregard; that ambiguity permits imputed-malice theory | Court follows Powell/Langi reasoning: CALCRIM 401 can be ambiguous and allow conviction without finding aider’s personal malice; ambiguity supports prima facie relief. |
| Whether the record conclusively refutes the petition so the trial court could summarily deny under Lewis/Strong | Prosecutor’s closing statements showed jury was instructed/functioned on non-imputed-malice theory, so record resolves eligibility against petitioner | Record is ambiguous; brief prosecutor remarks do not overcome instruction ambiguity and low prima facie bar | Record does not conclusively refute claim; summary denial improper. |
| Whether the "reasonable likelihood" (Boyde) standard applies to decide if instructions could have led jury to an invalid theory | Argues Boyde requires assessing whether there is a reasonable likelihood jury was misled and that standard defeats petitioner here | Even if Boyde applies, reasonable likelihood is met because instruction ambiguity plus closing argument leave more than a mere possibility jury convicted on imputed malice | Court treats Boyde standard as met (and also finds the point forfeited by People); issues order to show cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Langi, 73 Cal.App.5th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (holding standard aiding-and-abetting instructions can permit conviction based on imputed malice and requiring remand when ambiguity exists)
- People v. Powell, 63 Cal.App.5th 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (concluding CALCRIM No. 401 is not tailored to implied-malice murder and can be ambiguous)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explaining direct aiding-and-abetting liability for implied malice remains viable after SB 1437)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (describing SB 1437’s elimination of natural-and-probable-consequences murder liability and setting standards for § 1172.6 prima facie review)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (stating trial court may dismiss § 1172.6 petition only if record conclusively shows ineligibility)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1990) (articulating the "reasonable likelihood" test for whether an ambiguous jury instruction permitted an invalid theory)
- People v. Stanley, 10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995) (framework for first-degree murder and statutory means such as lying in wait)