People v. Prettyman

Decision Date09 December 1996
Docket NumberNo. S040008,S040008
Citation926 P.2d 1013,58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827,14 Cal.4th 248
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 926 P.2d 1013, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8891, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,698 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard D. PRETTYMAN et al., Defendants and Appellants.

George L. Schraer and Neil Auwarter, San Diego, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendants and Appellants.

Francis J. Bardsley, Public Defender (San Diego), Jacqueline C. Crowle, Deputy Alternate Public Defender, Riordan & Rosenthal, Dennis P. Riordan and Dylan L. Schaffer, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robert B. Shaw, Janelle B. Davis and Nancy L. Palmieri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

John J. Meehan, District Attorney (Alameda) and William M. Baldwin, Assistant District Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

KENNARD, Justice.

Under California law, a person who aids and abets a confederate in the commission of a criminal act is liable not only for that crime (the target crime), but also for any other offense (nontarget crime) committed by the confederate as a "natural and probable consequence" of the crime originally aided and abetted. To convict a defendant of a nontarget crime as an accomplice under the "natural and probable consequences" doctrine, the jury must find that, with knowledge of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose, and with the intent of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the target crime, the defendant aided, promoted, encouraged, or instigated the commission of the target crime. The jury must also find that the defendant's confederate committed an offense other than the target crime, and that the nontarget offense perpetrated by the confederate was a "natural and probable consequence" of the target crime that the defendant assisted or encouraged.

In this case, defendant Debra Jane Bray was charged with the crime of murder; the prosecution's theory at trial was that she was guilty as an accomplice. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find Bray guilty of murder if it determined either that she had aided and abetted the murder or that the murder was a "natural and probable consequence" of any uncharged offense(s) that Bray had aided and abetted. The court did not, however, identify or describe any such uncharged target offense. At issue here is whether, absent a request by counsel, the court should have so instructed the jury.

We conclude that when the prosecutor relies on the "natural and probable consequences" doctrine, the trial court must identify and describe the target crimes that the defendant might have assisted or encouraged. An instruction identifying target crimes will assist the jury in determining whether the crime charged was a natural and probable consequence of some other criminal act. And an instruction describing the target crimes will eliminate the risk that the jury will engage in uninformed speculation with regard to what types of conduct are criminal.

I. FACTS

Codefendant Richard D. Prettyman and defendant Debra Jane Bray were charged with the murder of Gaylord "Vance" Van Camp (Pen.Code, § 187; all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code), and with conspiring to murder Van Camp (§ 182). A jury convicted both of first degree murder, but acquitted them of conspiracy. 1 The following evidence was presented at their trial.

Defendant Bray and codefendant Prettyman held themselves out as husband and wife. They, as well as victim Van Camp, were among the homeless living in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego. Van Camp was beaten to death with a steel pipe on the morning of July 20, 1992, while asleep in the courtyard of the Pacific Beach Presbyterian Church. The prosecution contended that Prettyman beat Van Camp to death with the pipe, and that Bray, described by the prosecutor as an "argumentative drunk," encouraged Prettyman to kill Van Camp in order to obtain Bray's wallet, which Bray had given to Van Camp for safekeeping the previous evening.

On the evening preceding the murder, defendant Bray and Van Camp had dinner at the church. Codefendant Prettyman was not present during the dinner, but he attended the religious service that followed. After the service, Bray, who was intoxicated, argued with Prettyman. According to prosecution witness Dennis Charette, a homeless man who observed the argument, Bray demanded that Prettyman return to her certain identification papers that she needed to collect a benefit check. When the argument became heated, Van Camp asked the church's preschool director, Stephanie Hansen, to intervene. At trial, Hansen mentioned that it was "pretty common" for the "street people" she knew to argue and to threaten one another, and that she had heard Bray arguing with Prettyman on other occasions.

After talking to Bray and Prettyman, Hansen asked Van Camp to take Prettyman away from the church until the latter had calmed down. The two men left. Before they went, Bray handed her wallet to Van Camp. According to Charette, Bray told Van Camp to hold the wallet for safekeeping, to prevent Prettyman from stealing it.

Prettyman and Van Camp returned to the church courtyard. Prettyman lay down next to Bray, while Van Camp found a sleeping spot a short distance away. When Charette got up at 2 a.m. to urinate, he noticed that Bray and Prettyman were gone, but that Van Camp was still asleep in the courtyard.

At 3:00 or 4:00 a.m., Edward Eash, a homeless man sleeping in a car near the church courtyard, was awakened by the sound of loud voices. Looking out a car window, he saw Bray and codefendant Prettyman. Bray repeatedly said: "We are going to get that fucker Vance. He has no idea who he is messing with. He ain't getting away with this shit." Prettyman nodded his head and said, "Yep. Okay."

Between 4:00 and 5:30 a.m., Charette was awakened by the sound of thumping noises in the church courtyard. He heard codefendant Prettyman say, "Take that." Sitting up, Charette saw Prettyman leave the courtyard with a three-to-four-foot pipe. Charette heard Van Camp make "gagging" noises.

Immediately after Prettyman's departure, Bray came "flying up" to Charette. She told him to leave and not to look at Van Camp. Charette obeyed. He later met Bray and Prettyman in front of the church. Prettyman then went back into the church courtyard. He returned within a few minutes, and reported that Van Camp had choked on his own blood. Prettyman then said, "teach him to steal a wallet [and] to threaten us," adding that Van Camp had "deserved it." Both Bray and Prettyman told Charette not to tell anyone what had happened.

Shortly after 6:00 a.m., codefendant Prettyman told Robert Walker, another homeless man, that he had killed Van Camp with a metal pipe and then had started looking for Bray's wallet. He told Walker that he eventually found the wallet under Van Camp's head.

At 6:30 a.m., preschool director Hansen arrived at the church. She saw a figure lying in the church courtyard and heard a moaning sound, but she did not investigate, assuming that the person was waking up. At 7:20 a.m., the custodian told her there was a dead body in the courtyard, and she called the police.

When police officers arrived, they saw Van Camp's body lying in the courtyard, a bloody jacket next to his head. Papers, items of clothing, and Van Camp's backpack were strewn on the steps to the church sanctuary. The police retrieved a three-foot long piece of galvanized steel pipe from the ivy on church grounds.

Dr. Harry James Bonnell, Chief Deputy Medical Examiner for San Diego County, testified that Van Camp's death was caused by three blows to the head from a blunt instrument, and that the blows could have been inflicted by the steel pipe that the police had found on the church grounds. The pipe had no bloodstains or fingerprints. Dr. Bonnell stated that if some garment had covered Van Camp's head when the fatal blows were struck, this might explain the absence of bloodstains on the pipe. According to prosecution witness Dennis Charette, Van Camp customarily covered his head with his coat before going to sleep in the church courtyard.

Both defendant Bray and codefendant Prettyman attempted to show that someone other than Prettyman had killed Van Camp. The chief defense witness was Charles Dunner, a homeless man. Between 12:00 and 1:30 on the night of the killing, Dunner was "dumpster diving" in an alley across the street from the Pacific Beach Presbyterian Church. As he left the alley, he saw a car with two occupants. A Hispanic man with a beard and slick hair got out of the car and ran into the church courtyard, carrying a bat or club. After looking around, the man repeatedly hit someone or something with the club. Dunner could not see what the man was hitting because his view was partially obstructed by a planter box. The man then returned to the car, got in, threw the club in the back seat, and the car took off. The defense also called Summer Boyd, a licensed vocational nurse. She testified that she attended a meeting at the Pacific Beach Presbyterian Church on the morning that Van Camp was killed, arriving about 7:10. During the meeting, at 7:17 a.m., she heard some men shouting, "Let's get out of here, they are coming." She then saw two Hispanic men and one White male with long scraggly light-brown hair run down the alley next to the church.

The defense also presented expert testimony. David Fortman, a defense investigator who had taught courses in forensics, blood spatter evidence, and criminology, testified that, based on blood spatters photographed at the scene, significant quantities of blood must have been transferred to the murder weapon when it was used to strike the fatal blows to Van Camp's head. Because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1105 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 21, 2018
    ...with a firearm, and that second degree murder was a natural and probable consequence of that offense. (See People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013.) On the prosecution’s version of events, defendant was the shooter; on defendant’s version, he was brought......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2016
    ...on him for any reasonably foreseeable offense committed as a consequence by the perpetrator.’ " (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 261, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013, quoting People v. Croy (1985) 41 Cal.3d 1, 12, fn. 5, 221 Cal.Rptr. 592, 710 P.2d 392.) "The natural and probab......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2018
    ...other crime [nontarget crime] that is the ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the target crime." ( People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 261, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013.) To find an aider and abettor guilty of a nontarget crime under the natural and probable consequences theor......
  • People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2009
    ...have so instructed the jury but any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the reasons previously discussed. (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 268; People v. Failla (1966) 64 Cal.2d 560, C. Battery Instructions Defendants argue the trial court failed to instruct on the l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 30.02 Accomplice Liability: General Principles
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 30 Liability for the Acts of Others: Complicity
    • Invalid date
    ...L. Rev. 689, 702 (1930).[14] Kadish, Note 1, supra, at 354.[15] Id. at 355.[16] Dressler, Note 1, supra, at 111; People v. Prettyman, 926 P.2d 1013, 1018 (Cal. 1996) (quoting the text).[17] Dressler, Note 1, supra, at 111.[18] See State v. Curry, 636 S.E.2d 649, 653 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) (up......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...(1968) , 84, 96, 304, 340 Powell, People v., 63 N.Y. 88 (1875), 415 Preslar, State v., 48 N.C. 421 (1856), 184, 185 Prettyman, People v., 926 P.2d 1013 (Cal. 1996), 437 Proctor v. State, 176 P. 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1918), 84 Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 428 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1993), 289 ......
  • § 30.02 ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 30 Liability For the Acts of Others: Complicity
    • Invalid date
    ...Rev. 689, 702 (1930).[14] . Kadish, Note 1, supra, at 354.[15] . Id. at 355.[16] . Dressler, Note 1, supra, at 111; People v. Prettyman, 926 P.2d 1013, 1018 (Cal. 1996) (quoting the text).[17] . Dressler, Note 1, supra, at 111.[18] . See State v. Curry, 636 S.E.2d 649, 653 (S.C. Ct. App. 20......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT