In re Scoggins
Not available in provided text (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a non-killer accomplice to felony murder, the special circumstance of 'reckless indifference to human life' under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d), requires evidence of knowingly creating a 'grave risk of death,' not merely a foreseeable risk inherent in any violent felony, assessed by the totality of circumstances including the defendant's plan for weapon use, presence at the scene, knowledge of confederate's lethal propensities, and efforts to minimize violence.
Facts:
- In June 2008, Willie Scoggins purchased what he believed to be three large flat-panel televisions from Samuel Wilson for $300 each, but discovered the boxes contained only packaging paper and wood.
- Scoggins became angry about being swindled by Wilson.
- Scoggins devised a plan for his close friends, Randall Powell and James Howard, to hide, jump out, "beat the shit" out of Wilson, and get Scoggins's money back, explicitly not involving Scoggins's presence or the use of weapons.
- Scoggins's girlfriend, Shaneil Cooks, and her friend, Jennifer Kane, arranged a meeting with Wilson under the pretense of buying a television.
- Cooks, Kane, Powell, and Howard went to a parking lot to meet Wilson; shortly after they arrived, Powell pulled out a gun, fired several shots, and killed Wilson.
- During these events, Scoggins, as planned, was not present at the crime scene but waited at a nearby gas station, exchanging phone calls with Powell and Howard.
- After the shooting, Scoggins walked over to Wilson to check if he was still breathing and later spoke with arriving police as a cooperative witness.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2011, a jury convicted Willie Scoggins of first-degree murder (Penal Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted robbery (id., §§ 211, 664), and found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during an attempted robbery (id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)).
- The trial court sentenced Scoggins to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting Scoggins’s claim that insufficient evidence supported the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding.
- The California Supreme Court denied Scoggins’s petition for review.
- In 2015 and 2016, Scoggins filed several petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court and the Court of Appeal, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the special circumstance finding, all of which were denied.
- In May 2016, Scoggins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, again challenging the special circumstance finding.
- The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause, returnable to the Court of Appeal, as to why Scoggins was not entitled to relief in light of People v. Banks (2015) and People v. Clark (2016).
- The Court of Appeal denied relief in a divided opinion, concluding that Scoggins was a major participant and that the record supported a finding of reckless indifference to human life.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-killer accomplice, who plans an unarmed assault and robbery but is not physically present when an accomplice unexpectedly uses lethal force, exhibit reckless indifference to human life sufficient to uphold a felony-murder special-circumstance finding under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d), as clarified by People v. Banks and People v. Clark?
Opinions:
Majority - Liu, J.
No, Willie Scoggins did not act with reckless indifference to human life, and therefore the special circumstance finding must be reversed. The court clarified that the special circumstances statute, Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d), incorporates the holding of Tison v. Arizona, requiring both major participation and reckless indifference to human life. Reckless indifference involves a subjective awareness of and willing involvement in the violent manner of the offense, consciously disregarding a significant risk of death, as well as an objective risk of death so grave that its disregard is a gross deviation from a law-abiding person's conduct. Crucially, mere awareness of a foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient; it requires knowingly creating a 'grave risk of death.' Applying the multi-factor analysis from People v. Clark, the court found several factors did not support a finding of reckless indifference: (1) Scoggins did not use a gun, nor did the plan involve weapons or Scoggins knowing a gun would be used; he planned an unarmed assault. (2) Scoggins was not physically present at the crime scene and was therefore unable to restrain Powell, distinguishing him from the defendants in Tison. Evidence suggested his view was blocked, making him unaware of the deviation from the plan in real time. (3) The interaction between the perpetrators and Wilson was brief, not a prolonged period of restraint. (4) There was no evidence Scoggins knew Powell or Howard were likely to use lethal force, despite knowing of Powell's 'hot head' or Howard's loyalty; this falls short of the prior knowledge of lethal propensities seen in Tison. The prosecution conceded there was no intent to kill Wilson. (5) Scoggins made efforts to minimize the risk of violence by planning an unarmed beating in a public parking lot during daytime, where witnesses might deter escalation, which is a significant step towards minimizing the likelihood of a 'grave risk of death' compared to planning an armed robbery. While Scoggins's actions after the shooting were ambiguous and could suggest either anticipation or an intent to aid, they were not substantially probative of his mental state. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Scoggins's plan for an unarmed assault and robbery, coupled with the lack of evidence that he knew his accomplices would deviate from this plan to use lethal force, means he did not 'knowingly create a grave risk of death.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the high evidentiary bar for applying the felony-murder special circumstance of 'reckless indifference to human life' for non-killer accomplices in California. It emphasizes that while a defendant may be a major participant and plan for violence, the mental state of 'reckless indifference' requires specific knowledge or actions that create a grave risk of death, rather than just a general foreseeable risk inherent in violent crime. The court's detailed application of the Clark factors provides a robust framework for lower courts, highlighting the importance of the defendant's plan concerning weapon use, physical presence, and knowledge of confederates' propensity for lethal violence. The ruling suggests a trend towards greater individualized culpability assessment, particularly protecting defendants whose accomplices escalate violence beyond the scope of a non-lethal original plan.
