People v. Smith
60 Cal. 4th 603
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Defendant Vince Bryan Smith, a Gateway Posse Crips member, brought his brother to a planned "jump out" (a gang expulsion beating) involving YAH Squad and Pueblo Bishop affiliates; a fight ensued and multiple people fired guns.
- Two victims (friends/relatives of Smith) were killed; prosecution theory: Smith aided and abetted the target offenses (disturbing the peace/assault) and is liable for the murders as natural and probable consequences though he did not fire the fatal shots.
- Jury convicted Smith of second-degree murder for both deaths and gang participation; the Court of Appeal affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review limited to the natural-and-probable-consequence aiding-and-abetting theory.
- Key factual uncertainties: multiple people (including Deshawn Littleton and Tovey Moody) had guns and fired; it was not definitively established which defendant’s confederate fired the fatal shots.
- Trial instruction (CALCRIM No. 402) included a sentence saying a nontarget crime is not a natural and probable consequence if committed for a reason independent of the common plan; the Court considered whether that sentence correctly stated aider-and-abettor law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aider-and-abetter liability for a nontarget crime requires proof the nontarget offense was a reasonably foreseeable consequence | Prosecution: liability requires only that the nontarget offense was a reasonably foreseeable (natural & probable) consequence of the target crime | Smith: court must also require the nontarget offense not be a "fresh and independent product" of a co-principal (i.e., not for an independent reason) | Held: Only reasonable foreseeability is required; no additional legal requirement that the nontarget crime not be committed for an independent reason (CALCRIM sentence was incorrect but favorable to defendant) |
| Whether uncertainty about which confederate fired fatal shots defeats aider-and-abetting murder liability | Prosecution: jury may convict under natural-and-probable-consequences theory so long as it unanimously finds a discrete murder occurred, that a principal in the target crime committed it, defendant aided the target crime, and the murder was foreseeable | Smith: insufficient evidence because jury could not unanimously identify who committed the nontarget murders; thus essential element (that a confederate committed murder) is not proved | Held: Substantial evidence supported conviction; jury need not unanimously agree on which theory or on identity of the shooter so long as each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the specific murder and the other requisite findings are met |
| Whether the CALCRIM No. 402 sentence limiting aider/conspirator liability is binding law | — | — | Held: The CALCRIM sentence (excluding liability when nontarget crime was for an independent reason) misstates aiding-and-abetting law (it may reflect conspiracy principles) but was harmless here because favorable to defendant |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support foreseeability and aider-and-abetting findings | Prosecution: gang context, mutual participation, known propensity of Pueblo Bishop members to carry/use guns, defendant brought backup and had a gun and pointed it — foreseeability is established | Smith: disputes foreseeability and that he intended or foresaw lethal force | Held: Evidence reasonably supports that murder was a foreseeable consequence of the jump out and that Smith aided and abetted the target offenses; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (aider-and-abetter principles; mental state and act required)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (application of natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine to aiders and abettors)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (natural-and-probable-consequences standard: objective reasonable foreseeability)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (aider liability for unintended murder when it is a natural and probable consequence)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (foreseeability measured objectively by a reasonable person in defendant’s position)
- People v. Kauffman, 152 Cal. 331 (early formulation limiting conspirator liability for acts that are a "fresh and independent product")
- People v. Durham, 70 Cal.2d 171 (discussing interplay of conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting doctrines)
- People v. Santamaria, 8 Cal.4th 903 (no unanimity required on theory of guilt so long as each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Culuko, 78 Cal.App.4th 307 (applied Santamaria principles to natural-and-probable-consequences context)