People v. Richee

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on natural-and-probable-consequences theories of murder and attempted murder and failed to instruct on the elements of a drive-by special-circumstance allegation. The instructional error required reversal of the attempted-murder convictions but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder convictions and special-circumstance findings. The court also rejected Andre Richee’s evidentiary challenge and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred by instructing the jury under CALCRIM No. 417 that defendants could be convicted of murder or attempted murder when those offenses were natural and probable consequences of a conspiracy's common plan. California legislation eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory for murder and attempted murder, and valid liability theories require the defendant's own legally sufficient mental state and participation in the charged offense.
2. The instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the attempted-murder convictions, which must be reversed.
3. The instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder convictions, which were affirmed.
4. The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the drive-by special circumstance under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(21).
5. The omission of the drive-by-special-circumstance elements was subject to harmless-error review and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Richee's girlfriend told investigators Richee said, 'That he did it.' The evidence was admissible as a party admission, relevant, and sufficiently reliable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury that defendants could be convicted of murder and attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
2. Whether the natural-and-probable-consequences instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder convictions and the attempted-murder convictions.
3. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the drive-by special circumstance under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(21).
4. Whether the omission of the drive-by-special-circumstance elements required automatic reversal or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Richee's girlfriend's testimony recounting his statement that he had done it.

Disposition

other