People v. Prettyman Flashcards
Departures from the common scheme
Not all cases of accomplice liability involve conspiracies
People v. Prettyman (CA)
Facts:
Husband and wife (Prettyman and Bray) get into argument, Bray gives wallet to Vance to protect it, they all sleep, Bray tells prettyman to get Vance and Prettyman beats Vance to Death with a pipe.
Procedure:
Bray convicted of 1st degree murder at trail but acquitted her of conpsiracy
Bray appealed to appellate (bad instructions)
Appellate court affirms (instruction was okay )
Bray appealed to high court
Holding:
The majority (Justice Kennard) : Affirmed trial conviction
-Harmless error that you need to explain the target offense before anyone can know if the actual offense is natural and probable
- Prosecution theory was that she murdred b/c he murdered; natrual and probable consequence does not apply
R(Bray)-P(Prettyman) -V(Vance)
People v. Prettyman (Procedure)
Trail court:
- Charged with murder and Bray was charged with murder as an accomplice
- instructions: (1) Murder via aiding and abetting and (2) Murder via natural and probable consequences of an uncharged offense that Bray aided and abetted
- Jury convicted prettyman and Bray of first degree murder but NOT conspiracy to commit murder
Court of appeal:
- affirmed trial court/properly instructed
- Rejected Brays argument that under CALJIC No. 3.02 the trial court required that they must identify the “original plan”
- Notes a split of authority regarding the need to instruct the jury about the target offense
CA supreme court:
- People v. Mouton: Trail court must name and define the predicate crime
- People v. Solis: Held that such instructions are not necessary unless there is a dispute whether the predicate planned acts are criminal
Issue:
Whether absent a request of counsel, the trial judge should have sua sponte (on its own) identified or described the uncharged offense to the jury.
Ruling:
The trail judge must identify and describe the target offense that the defendant might have assited or encouraged when the prosecutor relies on the “Natural and probable consequences”
-help jury understand
-reduce speculation
CALJIC 3.01 Aiding and abetting liability
Target offense=predicate offense
A person who aids and abets the commission of a crime is a principal in the crime and shares guilt of the actual perpetrator
- accomplice liability is derivative “your acts are my acts”
- We may impute the actions of the perpetrator to the accomplice by “agency doctrine”
Ppl v. Beeman:
(1) Acted with knowledge of the targeted offense
(2) with intent and
(3) with intent or purpose of committing, encouraging or facilitating the offense
- Must share the SI of the perpetrator
CALJIC 3.02 Natural and probable consequence doctrine
Excess offense=Surplus offense
When an accomplice assists or encourages one crime and the Perp commits another more serious crime(non-target offense)
- Must be a reasonably apparent connection between the target offense and the excess crime
(1) The Def acted with knowledge of the accomplice unlawful purpose
(2) With the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the crime
(3) AIded, promoted, encouraged, or instigated the commission of the crime by act or advice
(4) The Def accomplice committed an offense other than the target crime
(5) The offense committed by the compliance was the natural and probable consequence of the target crime and defendant aided and abetted
Common law: Person encouraging a crime is liable for the target offense and any natural and probable consequence
Beeman test
Aider and abetter is a person who:
(1) Acts with knowledge of the perpetrators unlawful purpose
(2) The intent or purpose of commiting, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the crime by act or advice
People v. Kauffman
Established the natural and probable consequence doctrine
Facts:
Criminals were armed with guns and nitroglycerin to burgle a cemetery safe but turn back when they see a guard, but kills an officer when they do.
Convicted: Defendant was convicted of murder even thought he only held the nitroglycerin
B/C it was natural and probable becasue he would have protected each memeber of the team regardless if he had no real weapon.
BUT Kaufman involved the liability of conspirators for substantive crimes in the court of conspriacy. NOT the libaility of aiders and abetters as does Pettyman.
People v. Prettyman
Bray relied on Mouton to argue that the trial court should have specified the target or predicate crimes on its own initiative according to the 1992 CALJIC no. 3.02
-A judge is obligated sua sponte(on its own) to instrust the jury on all general legal principals raised by evidence and necessary for the jury understanding
The court in Prettyman rules that Sua sponte duty to instruct is only triggered when the prosecution has elected to rely on the natural and probable consequence theory of accomplice liability
When should trial court give natural and probable consequence instruction?
(1) The record contains substantial evidence that the defendant intended to encourage/assist accomplice to commit target offense; AND
(2) Jury could reasonably find that the crime committed by the accomplice was natural and probable consequence of the specifically contemplated target offense
Since the prosecutor did not rely on the doctrine, the trial court had no duty to instruct. However once the trial court did instruct the jury fo the doctrine, it had to identify and describe the offense but fialing to do so was a harmless error
The case started as a 3.01 then ended as a 3.02 case
People v. Prettyman Outcome
Brays first degree murder conviction affirmed. The CA supreme court found that the error of not instructing on the revised version of 3.02 was not prejudicial (harmless)
Application
In a first degree case, does the jury need to unanimously agree as to whether the killing was premeditated murder or felony-murder? NO(People v. Pride)
People v. Whom?
Real party is Bray b/c the court is attempting to determine whether she aided and abetted in the murder of van camp
Complicity with conspiracy
Complicity can exist without one another on a given et of facts b/c Bray and Prettyman never entered a verbal or written contract stating they wanted Van Camp dead.
-No SI and no agreement so no conspiracy
Alibi; Justification, excuse, or neither?
There is no justification or excuse because they denied the killing. If they admitted to the killing then they could justify the killing or excuse would be that Van Camp was stealing the Bray’s wallet
Revised Jury instruction
The court relied on Mouton to conclude that the court that it is not necessary to provide instruction as to the possible predicate crimes.
