The People v. Owens CA3
C069838
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 24, 2013Background
- Three defendants Owens, Reed, and Murray were convicted of first degree felony murder with special circumstances and robbery/burglary in a single incident (victim killed during a home invasion robbery).
- Murray, young at the time (near 18), challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the special circumstance and raises multiple instructional and sentencing issues related to juvenile LWOP.
- Reed challenges the recklessness standard for the special circumstance and argues ineffective assistance; Owens challenges a jury-question response and evidentiary rulings.
- Evidence included: eyewitness/earwitness testimony, firearm evidence, text messages, and Tamika Reed’s plea deal testimony used for corroboration.
- The court consolidates the three appeals for argument and disposition and reverses Murray’s sentence for Miller-based remand, otherwise affirming the judgments for Reed and Owens.
- Miller v. Alabama (2012) requires remand to reconsider Murray’s sentencing under current Eighth Amendment standards for juveniles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Murray’s special circumstance | Murray lacked independent robbery/burglary-based killer intent. | Evidence showed murder not tied to independent felony. | Sufficient evidence supports special circumstance. |
| Instruction on lesser included offenses to felony murder | Court should have instructed on lesser offenses. | Evidence shows indisputable first degree felony murder; no lesser needed. | Courts properly declined lesser included offense instructions. |
| CALCRIM 730 adequacy to convey nonincidental felony requirement | Instruction fails to ensure nonincidental requirement is conveyed. | CALCRIM 730 adequately conveys nonincidental requirement. | Instruction adequate; no error. |
| Prejudicial effect of aiding and abetting instruction on natural and probable consequences | Erroneous fragment allowed undefined scope of other crimes. | Doctrine was not argued or applicable; harmless error. | No reversible error; fragment harmless. |
| Remand for Miller-based resentencing for Murray | No need to alter original LWOP sentence post-Miller. | Remand required to apply Miller’s individualized sentencing requirements. | Remand for resentencing consistent with Miller; otherwise affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kipp, 26 Cal.4th 1100 (Cal. 2001) (standard for reviewing criminal sufficiency on appeal)
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1997) (criteria for evaluating evidence and verdicts)
- People v. Anderson, 141 Cal.App.4th 430 (Cal. App. 2006) (instructional scope for lesser offenses in felony murder)
- People v. Horning, 34 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2004) (nonincidental requirement and CALJIC/CALCRIM instructions)
- People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) (felony-murder framework and related standards)
- People v. Guinn, 28 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Cal. App. 1994) (juvenile sentencing presumptions and LWOP context)
- People v. Ybarra, 166 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. App. 2008) (application of rules to juvenile offenders)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless error standard and review)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. _ (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; individualized sentencing required)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012) (Millar framework applied to California juvenile sentencing)