215 Cal. App. 4th 65
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Quiroz was convicted by a unanimous jury of first-degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm; the People argued for an aiding and abetting theory in addition to direct liability; the trial court instructed on both theories over Quiroz’s objections; the defense argued the People’s aiding and abetting theory was improperly timed and that unanimity on shooter vs. aider was required; the appellate court held the People had ample notice, titular requirements, and no unanimity requirement between direct and aiding and abetting theories; the court affirmed the conviction.
- Evidence showed Quiroz borrowed the Pontiac, accompanied Szostek who was an informant, possibly was present at the shooting, and engaged in post-shooting acts; he admitted to certain details to inmates and engaged in conduct suggesting involvement or awareness, supporting an aiding and abetting theory.
- The People formally proposed an aiding and abetting instruction during voir dire and again five days before closing arguments; Quiroz presented witnesses but did not request a unanimity instruction; the trial court gave both direct and aiding and abetting instructions.
- The court found Quiroz had ample notice of the aiding and abetting theory and that the late notice did not prejudice the defense; the midtrial shift in emphasis allowed proper closing argument and was harmless.
- The court concluded that identification of a specific principal was unnecessary for aiding and abetting liability; the evidence supported the shooter’s premeditation regardless of which occupant fired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity required for direct vs aiding theory | Quiroz argues Apprendi/Ring require unanimity | State-law unanimity should be required | Unanimity not required between theories |
| Timeliness of aiding and abetting instruction | Late notice deprived Hey of counsel | Quiroz had ample notice | Not reversible error; harmless |
| Identity of principal necessity | Need to name shooter to empower liability | Identification not required for aiding and abetting | Not required to name principal |
| Substantial evidence supports aiding-and-abetting instruction | Facts show awareness and complicity | Insufficient proof of intent | Substantial evidence supports instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garrison, 47 Cal.3d 746 (Cal. 1989) (notice can support aiding and abetting without explicit pleading)
- People v. Ardoin, 196 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. App. 2011) (notice and theory-advancement timing considerations)
- Beeman v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984) (aiding and abetting objective intent standards)
- Russo v. Beardslee, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) (unanimity when multiple theories for single crime)
- People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1991) (unanimity regarding theory of murder)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (due process on facts increasing penalties; not altering unanimity for theories)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (same principle as Apprendi for sentencing facts)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (unanimity for alternative theories within a single offense permissible)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) (timing and notice regarding new theories)
- People v. Crawford, 224 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. App. 1990) (advance notice of new theory before closing arguments)
- Perez v. People, 21 Cal.App.4th 214 (Cal. App. 1993) (unanimity where different factual scenarios for same crime)