People v. Montes
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7489, 74 Cal. App.4th 1050, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 482 (1999)
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 crime can be held liable for a second, more serious crime committed by a co-participant if the second crime was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the first. In the context of gang confrontations, a shooting is a foreseeable consequence of a physical assault, even if the aider and abettor did not know their confederate was armed.
Facts:
- Juan Alexander Montes, a member of the Orange Krazy Mexicans (OKM) gang, had a prior violent confrontation with Jorge Garcia, a former member of the rival Varrio Pelones Locos (VPL) gang.
- On the night of the incident, Montes and fellow OKM members were in a fast-food restaurant parking lot when Garcia arrived with friends.
- Montes initiated a confrontation by throwing soda on Garcia's car and yelling gang-related insults.
- After Garcia exited his car, Montes and his fellow gang members surrounded him.
- Garcia drew a switchblade for defense, at which point Montes, armed with a three-foot chain, doubled it over and struck Garcia on the shoulder.
- To help Garcia, his friend Eduardo Flores yelled about a gun, causing the OKM members to retreat momentarily.
- After Flores threw a pipe toward the OKM members, another OKM member, Arturo Cuevas, retrieved a gun from a nearby car.
- Cuevas ran up to Garcia and shot him several times.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Alexander Montes was prosecuted by the State in a California superior court (trial court).
- A jury convicted Montes of multiple felonies, including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and street terrorism.
- Montes, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of the trial court to the California Court of Appeal.
- The State of California is the appellee in this appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, is a defendant who aids and abets a simple assault during a gang confrontation criminally liable for an attempted murder committed by a co-participant, even if the defendant did not know the co-participant was armed?
Opinions:
Majority - Bedsworth, J.
Yes. A defendant is criminally liable for an attempted murder committed by a co-participant if it is a natural and probable consequence of the target crime they aided and abetted, even without knowledge that the co-participant was armed. The court reasoned that liability under this doctrine is based on foreseeability, not on the defendant's specific knowledge of a weapon. In the context of modern gang warfare, verbal taunts and physical assaults frequently and foreseeably escalate to the use of lethal force. The court explicitly distinguished this reality from past eras, stating that cases like People v. Butts, which required knowledge of a weapon, are outdated and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Given the high potential for escalation in gang rivalries, it was immaterial whether Montes knew Cuevas had a gun; the shooting was a foreseeable outcome of the initial assault he initiated and participated in.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and adapts the natural and probable consequences doctrine to the violent realities of modern gang culture. By holding that specific knowledge of a weapon is not required for accomplice liability, the court makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions against gang members for escalated violence committed by their associates. The ruling establishes a precedent that the context of a gang confrontation itself makes lethal violence foreseeable, thus expanding the scope of liability for all participants in the initial, lesser crime. This effectively lowers the mens rea requirement for aiders and abettors in gang-related cases, focusing on the objective foreseeability of escalation rather than the defendant's subjective state of mind regarding a weapon.
