People v. Medina
209 P.3d 105, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202, 46 Cal. 4th 913 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a defendant who aids and abets a target offense, such as a simple assault in a gang context, can be found guilty of a nontarget offense like murder if a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have or should have known that the murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the assault, even if the defendant did not know the perpetrator was armed.
Facts:
- On January 2, 2004, Jose Medina, George Marrón, and Raymond Vallejo, all members of the Lil Watts gang, were at a party at Manuel Ordenes's home.
- Ernie Barba, a member of the Sanfer gang, arrived at the party.
- Inside the house, Vallejo confronted Barba with the gang challenge, 'Where are you from?'
- Concerned about violence, Ordenes ordered the men to go outside.
- Outside, Medina, Marrón, and Vallejo again challenged Barba, who responded with his gang affiliation, 'Sanfer.'
- Vallejo then punched Barba, and Medina and Marrón joined in a three-on-one fistfight.
- Barba defended himself well and was holding his own against the three attackers.
- Ordenes intervened, broke up the fight, and escorted Barba to his car.
- As Barba began to drive away, Medina walked into the street and fired multiple shots into the car, killing Barba with a gunshot wound to the head.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecution charged Jose Medina, George Marrón, and Raymond Vallejo with first-degree murder and attempted murder in the Superior Court of California.
- A jury found all three defendants guilty as charged.
- Marrón and Vallejo appealed their convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction of the shooter, Medina, but reversed the convictions of Marrón and Vallejo.
- The Court of Appeal held there was insufficient evidence that murder was a natural and probable consequence of the simple assault that Marrón and Vallejo had aided and abetted.
- The California Attorney General filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California regarding the reversals of Marrón's and Vallejo's convictions, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a gang-related confrontation, is a fatal shooting by one gang member a natural and probable consequence of a simple assault aided and abetted by other gang members, thereby making them liable for murder, even if the fight had ended and they did not know the shooter was armed?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, a fatal shooting by one gang member can be a natural and probable consequence of a simple assault aided and abetted by other gang members, making them liable for murder. The court reasoned that liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine is measured by whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that the charged offense was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act aided and abetted. The court rejected the appellate court's restrictive list of factors, stating that prior knowledge of a weapon is not necessary. Instead, foreseeability must be evaluated under all factual circumstances of the individual case. Here, the totality of the circumstances—including the nature of the gang challenge, expert testimony that such confrontations often escalate to lethal violence, the fact that the assailants' attempt to dominate Barba in the fistfight failed, and the gang's reputation for gun violence—provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that the murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the assault that Marrón and Vallejo aided and abetted.
Dissenting - Moreno, J.
No, the fatal shooting was not a natural and probable consequence of the simple assault under these specific facts. The dissent argued that the majority's holding creates an overly expansive interpretation of the natural and probable consequences doctrine. It emphasized key facts missing from this case that were present in prior decisions upholding such convictions: there was no evidence Marrón or Vallejo knew Medina was armed, the shooting occurred after the fistfight had ended, the fight was unplanned, and the gangs were not established rivals. The dissent contended that the evidence, including expert testimony, only established that homicide was a possible outcome, not a probable or reasonably foreseeable one. It concluded that the majority's reasoning effectively holds that any gang challenge automatically makes murder a foreseeable consequence, which goes too far.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine to gang-related crimes in California. By rejecting a rigid, factor-based analysis, the court empowers juries to consider the totality of the circumstances, particularly the volatile and escalatory nature of gang culture as explained by expert testimony. The ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for holding non-shooting aiders and abettors liable for murder, establishing that specific knowledge of a weapon is not a prerequisite for foreseeability. Consequently, this precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to secure murder convictions against all participants in a gang assault that escalates to a homicide, based on the inherent predictability of such escalations in that context.
