People v. Smith
337 P.3d 1159, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 100, 60 Cal. 4th 603 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An aider and abettor of a target crime is criminally liable for any nontarget crime committed by any principal of the target crime, so long as the nontarget crime was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crime.
Facts:
- Three rival street gangs were involved: the Gateway Posse Crips (defendant Vince Bryan Smith's gang), the YAH Squad, and the Pueblo Bishop Bloods.
- Smith's younger brother, McMorris, wanted to leave the YAH Squad, which planned to discipline him with a beating.
- Smith confronted YAH Squad members and threatened to kill one of them over his brother, angering the YAH Squad and their allies, the Pueblo Bishop Bloods.
- Smith arranged for his brother to be 'jumped out' of the YAH Squad, a ritual beating to exit the gang.
- On February 7, 2006, Smith brought his brother, along with fellow gang members Vincent McCarthy and Demetrius Hunt, to the 'jump out' to act as backup.
- Members of the YAH Squad and Pueblo Bishop Bloods, including Deshawn Littleton and Tovey Moody, arrived for the confrontation, and several were armed.
- During the fight, after McMorris was knocked down, Smith intervened and swung at a YAH Squad member.
- Immediately following Smith's actions, gunfire erupted from the opposing group, and Smith's associates, McCarthy and Hunt, were shot and killed.
Procedural Posture:
- Vince Bryan Smith was charged in a California superior court (trial court) with murder and other gang-related offenses.
- A jury found Smith guilty of two counts of second degree murder and of active participation in a criminal street gang.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the murder convictions.
- The Supreme Court of California granted Smith's petition for review on the limited question of whether he was properly convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequence doctrine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant who aids and abets target crimes like assault and disturbing the peace guilty of murder when a co-participant in the target crimes commits the murders, if the murders were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crimes?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes. A defendant who aids and abets a target crime is guilty of a nontarget offense, like murder, if that offense was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crime, regardless of whether the defendant intended the death or knew the specific identity of the perpetrator. The court's reasoning is that liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine extends to any crime committed by any principal in the target crime. The doctrine does not require the prosecution to prove that the nontarget offense was committed in furtherance of the common plan, a limitation that applies to conspiracy liability but not to aiding and abetting. Here, bringing armed members of rival gangs together for a planned fight made a fatal shooting a reasonably foreseeable outcome. Furthermore, the jury did not need to unanimously agree on the identity of the shooter, as long as each juror was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever fired the shots was a principal in the target crimes and committed murder.
Concurring - Liu, J.
Yes. Justice Liu concurs in the judgment to affirm the conviction but disagrees with the majority's reasoning. He argues that the conviction should be affirmed on the narrower ground that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that a specific individual, Deshawn Littleton, was the shooter, a theory both the prosecution and defense focused on at trial. He criticizes the majority's 'novel theory' that a conviction is valid even if the jurors were not unanimous about the shooter's identity. He contends that this improperly extends case law and could undermine the requirement that the prosecution must prove a nontarget offense was actually committed by a confederate, which is a necessary element of derivative liability. In his view, if some jurors believed one person committed the murder and other jurors believed a different person did, it does not constitute a valid, unanimous finding that a murder was committed by a co-participant at all.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the 'natural and probable consequences' doctrine for aider and abettor liability in California. It firmly establishes that the doctrine's scope is broad, holding an aider and abettor responsible for the foreseeable acts of any co-principal in the target crime, not just the individual they directly assisted. The court also drew a critical distinction by rejecting the importation of a conspiracy law requirement—that the non-target crime be in furtherance of the common plan—thereby simplifying the prosecution's burden to proving only objective foreseeability. The ruling's application of non-unanimity regarding the perpetrator's identity further strengthens the doctrine's utility in cases with multiple actors and chaotic circumstances, making it more challenging for defendants to escape liability due to uncertainty over specific roles.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Smith