People v. Murphy CA2/3
B297552
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- In 1993 Murphy was convicted of first‑degree murder under a felony‑murder theory after his cousin Terry fatally stabbed the victim during a robbery; Murphy was not the trier‑of‑fact killer.
- At trial the record showed Murphy helped plan/participate in the robbery, served as a lookout, and afterward handled the victim’s pants and wallet; he did not use or supply the knife and denied seeing the stabbing.
- In 2019 Murphy petitioned for relief under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437), arguing he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
- The trial court held hearings relying primarily on the prior appellate opinion (trial transcripts were unavailable), found Murphy a major participant but did not expressly find reckless indifference, and denied the petition; the court had initially questioned § 1170.95’s constitutionality.
- The Court of Appeal held § 1170.95 constitutional, found the superior court ultimately followed the statutory procedure (any procedural errors were harmless), but reversed because the record lacked substantial evidence that Murphy acted with reckless indifference to human life and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 1170.95 constitutional? | People argued the statute raised issues at trial; (trial court agreed). | Murphy argued statute is constitutional and applies to him. | Court of Appeal: §1170.95 is constitutional. |
| Did the trial court follow §1170.95 procedure and permit evidence? | People sought time to locate transcripts and to present evidence at hearing. | Murphy argued court failed to issue OSC and limit to record; defense was ready to proceed. | Court: initial confusion but ultimately complied (prima facie, OSC, §1170.95(d) hearing); no prejudice; defendant forfeited any claim about excluded evidence. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that Murphy was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference? | People relied on the appellate record and Murphy’s post‑crime conduct to show major participation and implied reckless indifference. | Murphy contended record is ambiguous about his role, weapon knowledge, proximity, and post‑crime conduct; no evidence he knowingly created a grave risk of death. | Court: even assuming major participant, record lacked substantial evidence of reckless indifference; petition should have been granted. |
| Remedy on insufficiency? | Affirm denial and leave murder conviction in place. | Vacate murder conviction and resentence per §1170.95. | Court: reversed, remand with instruction to vacate murder conviction and resentence under §1170.95. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (sets nonexclusive factors to assess whether an aider/abettor was a major participant in an underlying felony)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (clarifies the subjective/objective components of "reckless indifference" and lists factors for its assessment)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (2020) (applies Banks/Clark; insufficient reckless indifference where defendant planned an unarmed assault and an accomplice unexpectedly used a gun)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (explains Senate Bill 1437’s revisions to felony‑murder and natural & probable consequences doctrines)
- People v. Clements, 60 Cal.App.5th 597 (2021) (addresses §1170.95 burden and use of the record of conviction at the §1170.95(d) hearing)