People v. Sanchez
Decision Date | 16 March 2020 |
Docket Number | F076838 |
Citation | 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 829,46 Cal.App.5th 637 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Martin SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Cynthia Lee Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Martin Sanchez was convicted of attempted murder and assault with a firearm after his acquaintance fired a shotgun during a confrontation with other men. To prove attempted murder, the prosecutor argued Sanchez directly aided and abetted the shooter and, alternatively, that attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence of assault with a firearm.
On appeal, Sanchez initially raised two issues. First, the evidence insufficiently proved his guilt. Second, the natural and probable consequences theory violates his due process rights.
We asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on a third issue. Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1), enacted after Sanchez's trial, conviction, and sentence, now prohibits imputing malice "to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime." ( Pen. Code, § 188, subd. (a)(3).)1 In People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ( Medrano ), review granted March 11, 2020, S259948, a different panel of this court held the bill eliminates "the natural and probable consequences doctrine [as] a viable theory of accomplice liability for attempted murder." ( Id. at p. 1013, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 200.)
We reject Sanchez's initial two claims, but agree with this court's holding in Medrano, supra , and must reverse the attempted murder conviction.
The Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging Sanchez with the following felonies stemming from an incident occurring on May 30, 2016: attempted murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), with a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2).
While Sanchez was at a local park with his family, he was confronted by four men concerning title to a vehicle. The men threatened Sanchez physically and challenged his masculinity. Sanchez, angered, left the park and drove his family home.
But Sanchez did not stay home. Instead, he picked up an acquaintance known as "poder negro[,] which translates to black power." Sanchez informed his acquaintance, the eventual shooter, about the earlier confrontation. The shooter entered the pickup with an "object ... covered" in a sunshade. Sanchez claimed he believed the shooter was concealing "a bat or something" but expressed no concern or reservation about the weapon. Sanchez, knowing a fight might result, drove back to the park.
Once at the park, Sanchez and the shooter approached the men involved in the earlier confrontation. The parties separated into two groups. The shooter and two men walked towards the river. The shooter eventually dropped the sunshade, revealed a shotgun, and fired towards the victim. As the victim ran, the shooter gave chase and fired once more. The victim was shot in the face and back.
After the gunshots, a witness in the park heard "tires screeching" and "burning rubber" as a pickup drove towards the shooter. The shooter entered the pickup, driven by Sanchez, and headed towards the exit. The witness believed their efforts were coordinated.
The court, in part, instructed the jury as follows:
The court next instructed the jury on direct aiding and abetting principles. ( CALCRIM No. 401.)
The court then explained the natural and probable consequences doctrine:
The prosecutor argued both theories to the jury: "[Y]ou can find him guilty as an aider and abettor or you can find him guilty of wanting to do a crime that naturally leads to attempted murder."
Sanchez was found guilty as charged. The verdicts did not specify an attempted murder theory. He was sentenced to serve eight years in prison.
We first address Sanchez's initial claims. We then discuss why Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) eliminates the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it applies to attempted murder. Finally, we analyze the resulting prejudice in this case.
As mentioned, we asked the parties to brief SB 1437 and its application to the issues in this case. We now conclude the natural and probable consequences doctrine cannot prove attempted murder.
"Aider and abettor culpability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine is vicarious in nature." ( Chiu, supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 164, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972.) " ‘ "[A]ttempted murder requires a specific intent to kill ...." ’ " ( People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 664, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 893, 278 P.3d 1242.) Intent to kill is express malice. ( Id. at p. 653, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 893, 278 P.3d 1242 ; People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 642, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 453 P.3d 1038.) "[I]mplied malice cannot support a conviction of" attempted murder. ( People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 327, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, 48 P.3d 1107.) The natural and probable consequences doctrine therefore imputes specific intent to kill in attempted murder convictions. (See People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 259, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013 [].)
The issue, however, is that SB 1437 now prohibits imputing malice "to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime." ( § 188, subd. (a)(3).) Because malice in the murder context is no longer imputable, the Legislature has eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a viable theory to prove attempted murder. ( Medrano, supra , 42 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1013, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, 968, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 223 ( Larios ), review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259983.)
We choose not to restate verbatim the arguments presented in Medrano and Larios. Suffice it to say, we agree with the analyses therein. (See Medrano, supra , 42 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1012-1016, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 [ ]; Larios, supra , 42 Cal.App.5th at pp. 964-968, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 223 [same].) Both Medrano and Larios disagreed with the contrary conclusions reached in People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738, 753-756, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 456 ( Munoz ), review granted November 26, 2019, S258234, and People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1103-1107, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 ( Lopez ), review granted November 13, 2019, S258175. We similarly disagree with Munoz and Lopez.
We offer an additional reason we conclude SB 1437 applies to attempted murder. Limiting SB 1437's malice imputing prohibition to murder has the absurd consequence of incentivizing murder.
" ‘ "[A] fundamental principle of statutory construction is that the language of a statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences." ’ " ( People v. Cook (2015) 60 Cal.4th 922, 929-930, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 502, 342 P.3d 404.) Munoz and Lopez hold the absence of "attempt" in section 188, subdivision (a)(3), means the Legislature intentionally excluded attempted murder from its malice imputing proscription. ( Munoz, supra , 39 Cal.App.5th at pp. 754-756, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 456 ; Lopez, supra , 38 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1104-1105, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 33.) If this position is correct, then a criminal defendant's liability turns inversely on the victim's fortunes.
Consider, for example, the context within which these issues often arise: Criminal street gangs. Assume a hypothetical defendant sets out with his gang confederates to assault his rivals; if successful in their criminal enterprise, he may be guilty of assault and battery crimes with criminal street gang and injury enhancements. (E.g., §§ 245, 186.22, 12022.7.) However, if things go awry and one or more confederates intends to kill, the defendant's increased liability hinges on the victim's life or death.
If the hypothetical victim survives, the defendant may face a potential life sentence in a prosecution for an unintended attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (E.g., § 12022.53.) If instead the victim is killed, the defendant and all gang confederates who disavow the intent to kill face prosecution only for the intended assault and any other natural and probable crime committed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Love
...42 Cal.App.5th 956, 966, 969-970, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259983 ( Larios ); People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637, 642, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 829, review granted June 10, 2020, S261768 ( Sanchez ).) The last group has held that Senate Bill 1437 eliminated the na......
-
People v. Dennis
...256 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, review granted ––– Cal.5th ––––, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 812, 458 P.3d 860 (2020) ( Larios ); People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 829 ( Sanchez ).) As we will explain, we conclude Lopez and Munoz are the better reasoned opinions, and we will adhere to t......
-
People v. Alaybue
...42 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1013-1016, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 200, review granted March 11, 2020, S259948 [does apply]; People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637, 642-644, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 829, review granted June 10, 2020, S261768 [does apply].) As we explain, we conclude that Senate Bill 1437 does not......
-
People v. Nguyen
...11, 2020, S259948, People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, 964-968, review granted February 26, 2020, S259983, and People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637, premature petition for review filed on April 21, 2020, S261768; three cases in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal has rea......