B326140
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 6, 2024Background
- Tyrek Williams was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, four counts of assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
- The case stems from a July 10, 2019 shooting involving Williams and another suspect, targeting individuals connected to the Swans Bloods street gang, which resulted in one fatality and injuries to others, including a mother’s minor child in a nearby vehicle.
- Ballistics showed multiple weapons were fired from a moving vehicle, striking several cars and an apartment building; video footage and statements linked Williams to the crimes.
- Gang and firearm enhancements were initially found true but the gang enhancements were dismissed by the trial court after recent statutory amendments.
- Williams appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported convictions related to the shooting at an occupied vehicle and assaults with a firearm, and (2) the jury was improperly instructed on the shooting at an occupied vehicle count.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for shooting at occupied vehicle (count 5) and assault (counts 6–9) | Williams argued evidence did not show he personally fired at the occupied Camry or committed the assaults; suggested his gun was inoperable during these incidents. | The State said sufficient evidence, including video, ballistics, and admissions, showed Williams was either the shooter or directly aided/abetted the shooting. | Sufficient evidence supported the convictions; jury could find Williams perpetrated or aided and abetted all charged offenses. |
| Personal firearm use enhancements | Williams argued that the jury’s findings were incompatible with the evidence if he did not directly shoot at the Camry. | The State asserted Williams' admissions and physical evidence supported the enhancements as either shooter or aider/abettor. | Enhancements upheld; inconceivable Williams did not use a firearm in connection with crimes. |
| Requirement/propriety of written jury instructions for shooting at occupied vehicle | Williams argued omission of written CALCRIM No. 965 instruction was a prejudicial error requiring reversal. | The State conceded error but argued it was harmless because the jury was properly orally instructed and the omission would not have changed the outcome. | Error was harmless; oral instruction adequately informed the jury, no reasonable probability outcome would differ. |
| Mens rea required for aiding and abetting | Williams argued insufficient evidence he had the mental state to aid/abet these specific offenses. | The State insisted his conduct showed he shared intent with shooter and met general intent requirement. | Substantial evidence showed requisite intent for aiding and abetting under general intent standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984) (sets standard for direct aiding and abetting liability)
- People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 1158 (Cal. 1991) (clarifies aiding and abetting mental state)
- People v. Golde, 163 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (describes general intent required for assault)
- People v. Felix, 172 Cal.App.4th 1618 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (foreseeability of harm to victim in assault context)