People v. Chiu
59 Cal.4th 155, 325 P.3d 972, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An aider and abettor may not be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Liability for first-degree murder must be based on direct aiding and abetting principles where the aider and abettor personally acts with willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation.
Facts:
- High school students Sam Saeteum and Mackison Sihabouth arranged an afterschool fight, with both planning to bring friends.
- Defendant Bobby Chiu learned of the fight and told another student that his friend might bring a gun and shoot someone.
- Chiu, along with his friends Tony Hoong and Rickie Che, went to the location of the planned fight.
- At the location, a separate argument began between Chiu and Antonio Gonzales, which escalated when Chiu's group and Gonzales's group exchanged fighting words.
- Che punched Roberto Treadway (Gonzales's friend), and Chiu tackled Gonzales, initiating a large-scale brawl involving up to 25 people.
- During the brawl, Che retrieved a gun from a car's trunk.
- After pointing the gun at several people, Chiu and Hoong yelled at Che to 'shoot him, shoot him.'
- Che shot and killed Roberto Treadway, after which Chiu, Che, and Hoong fled the scene together.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecution charged Bobby Chiu with murder in a state trial court.
- At trial, the prosecution presented two theories of guilt: direct aiding and abetting, and murder as a natural and probable consequence of aiding and abetting assault or disturbing the peace.
- The trial court instructed the jury that it could find Chiu guilty of first-degree murder under the natural and probable consequences theory if it found the perpetrator committed first-degree murder, without requiring the jury to find that premeditation itself was a foreseeable consequence.
- The jury convicted Chiu of first-degree murder.
- Chiu, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, the state's intermediate appellate court, reversed the conviction, finding instructional error because the jury was not required to find that premeditated murder was a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.
- The People, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court.
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 the natural and probable consequences doctrine permit an aider and abettor to be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder based on the direct perpetrator's mens rea?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No, an aider and abettor may not be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The mental state of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation required for first-degree murder is uniquely subjective and personal to the direct perpetrator. The court reasoned that the public policy of deterrence is adequately served by holding an aider and abettor liable for second-degree murder when a death is a foreseeable consequence of the target crime. However, the connection between the aider and abettor's culpability for the target offense and the perpetrator's separate, premeditated mental state is too attenuated to justify imposing liability for the greater offense of first-degree murder. Such a conviction requires proof that the defendant directly aided and abetted the murder with the requisite knowledge and intent to kill.
Concurring and dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the conviction should be reversed, but the majority's reasoning is incorrect. The majority creates a new, unauthorized judicial exception to the natural and probable consequences rule by categorically barring its application to first-degree murder. The proper legal analysis does not require a new rule but a proper application of the existing one. The trial court's error was in failing to instruct the jury that it must find that first-degree premeditated murder itself—including the element of premeditation—was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target offense. The issue is foreseeability of the complete crime, not creating a categorical exclusion for certain offenses, which is a legislative function.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the natural and probable consequences doctrine in California homicide law. By creating a bright-line rule that this form of vicarious liability cannot support a first-degree premeditated murder conviction, the decision forces prosecutors to prove direct aiding and abetting to secure such a conviction against an accomplice. This requires showing the accomplice personally possessed the requisite mental state (willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation), rather than merely imputing the perpetrator's state of mind. The ruling increases the burden on the prosecution in cases involving accomplices to murder and reflects a judicial concern that the doctrine's reach had become too attenuated from an individual defendant's actual culpability.
