People v. Mohamed
201 Cal. App. 4th 515
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mohamed was convicted of robbery under Penal Code § 211 and sentenced to five years in state prison.
- Gomez and Medina identified Mohamed as one of the robbers during curbside lineups after the incident at a cafe.
- A nylon do-rag was found on Mohamed following his arrest; DNA from a recovered magazine was inconclusive.
- Mohamed provided a false alibi to the police, suggesting consciousness of guilt.
- Defense introduced eyewitness identification testimony explaining limitations and potential errors in identifications (lighting, distance, exposure, cross-racial misidentification).
- Court addressed sufficiency of the evidence and whether conspiracy instructions were proper under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Mohamed | Mohamed | Evidence supports identity beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Conspiracy instruction validity | Conspiracy not a valid liability theory under §31 | Conspiracy fits within 'all persons concerned' as principals | Conspiracy instruction proper under California law. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jennings, 50 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review; weigh credibility/motive not reweighing evidence)
- People v. Lindsay, 227 Cal.App.2d 482 (Cal. App. 2d 1964) (identification sufficiency considerations; witnesses may have doubt but still support verdict)
- In re Hardy, 41 Cal.4th 977 (Cal. 2007) (conspiracy counted as principal under §31; conspirators included as principals)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (standard for evidentiary review and trial court discretion)
- People v. Nguyen, 21 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. App. 1993) (broad interpretation of 'principals' and 'concerned' in §31)
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984) (statutory interpretation of principals and accomplices in conspiracy context)
- Talbott, 65 Cal.App.2d 654 (Cal. App. 1944) (early articulation of conspiracy and principal liability concepts)
- Durham, 70 Cal.2d 171 (Cal. 1969) (commentary on conspirators and principals; historical context)
- People v. Washington, 71 Cal.2d 1170 (Cal. 1969) (conspiracy instruction error when conspiracy not charged)