People v. Stevenson
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Three defendants (Stevenson, Stewart, Perry) were tried for a drive‑by shooting that killed three people and wounded four; multiple witnesses placed defendants as shooters and some defendants made inculpatory statements.
- Prosecutor charged three counts of first‑degree murder (with multiple‑murder special circumstances) and four counts of premeditated attempted murder; firearm and great‑bodily‑injury enhancements were alleged and found true.
- Jury was instructed on direct perpetration, aiding and abetting, and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theories for murder; conspiracy‑related instructions were also given in connection with the doctrine.
- Defendants challenged several instructions on appeal: (1) permitting first‑degree murder liability under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory (post‑Chiu), (2) failure to sua sponte instruct on assault with a firearm as a lesser included offense, (3) alleged ambiguity in the "kill zone" attempted‑murder instruction, and (4) motive instruction allegedly conflicting with the circumstantial‑evidence burden instruction.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the instructions lawful and no sua sponte duty to give a lesser‑included assault instruction given the pleadings and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/AG) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury could convict of 1st‑degree murder via natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction | Instruction set was proper because CALCRIM No. 521 required finding each defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation | Chiu bars convicting an aider/abetor of 1st‑degree murder on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory | Affirmed: No Chiu error here; CALCRIM No. 521 as given required defendant's own premeditation/deliberation, not the perpetrator's alone |
| Whether court erred by not sua sponte instructing on assault with a firearm as a lesser included offense | No duty where the information did not charge a conspiracy and evidence did not support lesser offense | Defendants: Cook supports sua sponte instruction on assault (or conspiracy‑to‑assault) given conspiracy evidence | Affirmed: No duty—assault with a firearm is not a lesser included of murder under elements test; pleadings did not charge conspiracy so Cook inapplicable; no substantial evidence of only the lesser offense |
| Whether "kill zone" instruction (CALCRIM No. 600) was ambiguous or misleading | Instruction correctly explained concurrent intent/kill‑zone doctrine | Defendants: Instruction could be read to permit convictions on less than required intent for each attempted murder | Affirmed: Instruction not reasonably likely to be misapplied; defendants forfeited any request for clarifying language by not asking at trial |
| Whether motive instruction conflicted with CALCRIM No. 224 (circumstantial evidence burden) | CALCRIM No. 370 (motive) and No. 224 (circumstantial evidence) are consistent; motive is not an element | Defendants: When motive is a link in circumstantial chain, jury must find motive beyond reasonable doubt; the standard motive instruction misstates burden | Affirmed: Motive is not an element; CALCRIM No. 370 properly describes relevance of motive and does not conflict with CALCRIM No. 224 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Supreme Court of California) (natural‑and‑probable‑consequences cannot support 1st‑degree murder conviction of aider/abettor)
- People v. Cook, 91 Cal.App.4th 910 (Cal. Ct. App.) (assault‑with‑firearm not lesser included of murder under elements test; conspiratorial pleading matters)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Supreme Court of California) (no duty to instruct on lesser offense absent substantial evidence)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Supreme Court of California) (kill‑zone doctrine: concurrent intent to kill others in zone may be inferred)
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (Supreme Court of California) (discussion of attempted murder intent and kill‑zone issues)
- People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal.4th 469 (Supreme Court of California) (party may not complain on appeal about an instruction that it failed to seek clarification for at trial)