WPC- S%&7=TB狈i. 1g>D5OYY3U%{ 9=v~":טs3cנпc=5Qwxz!CNePZ~l v(;D,$lFEGStW[IܓN~McaF'9h9L:r23ofBtBׯaȜf r9\1$/b/=Wn@F.s,t=?ERDE=W*jG5J?{IѠجv~G@o-WiIfaBt~I.(~\ 4[PX:bbVLnhZYFy"'ihGJ%ve#!U1N % 0SMN (R ^ z w@ 4   m N M 0%1 0=9 0v 0>> 0| 0F 0 0a 0 0 09w 0 02 0 0%: 0 0_y 0  0k 0M B* D3> Cq D+ 0 0} 06d 0 0: 0h 0FDU6MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMU>U*FU ,p 0n UN 0oc 1uK 0cw 067! 0! 0a" 0# 0# 0$ 1%U&>1&Mo&Ms&UJw& 1_& 72 ' 00DR' 0~( 72))F) B+ 0+ 0D,UN,,, -- 0-HP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(+e$  LjѶ4 DDE  U D D DDiu3@0p}.bk23|x@U0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK.<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K.<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K.<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I$%4$ ** ddI  B    ?B%2A`Arial?9&%*  dd9  XXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d####'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI$%4$** ddI  B    ?B%2A`Arial?9&%*  dd9  XXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK.<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK.<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSA\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial\ Y`Symbol(F2 $ e!  XX    WHALorenOrozcoMirandized Rivas opnWahlert T.W.Knollercofelon' KidnappingConcealableHinshawConklingWestlakeMejiaLenaresPrettymanDellinger%\  `6Times New RomanScalable(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#GIJKLMNOx?xIcgkosw{Large BulletLarge Bullet\  `&Times New RomankIA`2WP TypographicSymbols3$37;?CGKOS-*+xHi)(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# N  9(parparagraph in brief ` UW   ]$  XX    1    _ԀIwanttothankthefollowingpeopleforcontributingideas,andinmanycases  samplebriefing,forthispresentation:SteveBedrick,IrmaCastillo,ArthurDudley,KyleGee,MarkGreenberg,StephenGreenberg,KatKozik,EricMulthaup,DennisRiordan,RichardRubin,DallasSacher,Steven_Schorr_,George_Schraer_,Courtney_Shevelson_,Joseph_Shipp_ԀandDavidStanley. d(G(3$ e!  XX      0  (#$  0  (hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularHV N,quotesingle space, indent8  8`    e!  XX  _ 8dd8  0   0(#(#  8(#(#HOMICIDECASESTHESEARCHFORISSUES_[ ^#  1      _(#(# @ BY:PAULCOUENHOVENGENERALPRINCIPLES  Murder isanunlawfulkillingcommittedwithmaliceaforethought.(187,subd. P  (a).)Anunlawfulkillingwithmaliceaforethought,perpetratedbycertainspecifiedmeans(torture,lyinginwait,destructivedeviceorexplosive,weaponofmassdestruction,penetratingammunition,poison,)orthatiswillful,deliberate,andpremeditated,constitutesmurderinthefirstdegree.(189.)Akillinginthecourseofthecommissionofcertainenumeratedfelonies(arson,rapeandotherlistedsexcrimes,carjacking,robbery,burglary,mayhem,_kidnapping_,trainwrecking,shootingafirearmfromamotorvehicle##)also X constitutesmurderinthefirstdegree.(189.)  Seconddegreemurder isanunlawfulkillingwithmaliceaforethought,butwithout X theelementsthatelevateanunlawfulkillingtofirstdegreemurder.(187,subd.(a),189; `  Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300,307(Hansen).)Inaddition,anunlawfulkillingin `"  thecourseofthecommissionofafelonythatisinherentlydangeroustohumanlifebutis `$ notincludedamongthefeloniesenumeratedinsection189,ismurderintheseconddegree.(Peoplev.Ford(1964)60Cal.2d772,795.)     Malice maybeexpressorimplied.Maliceisexpress whenthereismanifesteda  deliberateintentionunlawfullytotakeawaythelifeofafellowcreature.(188.)Itisimplied whenthekillingresultsfromanintentionalact,thenaturalconsequencesofwhicharedangeroustolife,whichactwasdeliberatelyperformedbyapersonwhoknowsthathisconductendangersthelifeofanotherandwhoactswithconsciousdisregardforlife.(Peoplev._Lasko_(2000)23Cal.4th101,107.)    Voluntarymanslaughter isanunlawfulkillingcommittedwiththeintenttokillor  withconsciousdisregardforlife(i.e.,withmalice),ifthedefendantkilledina suddenquarrelorheatofpassion(192,subd.(a);Peoplev._Lasko_,supra,atpp.108,110-111)  orinanunreasonablebutgoodfaithbeliefintheneedtoactinselfdefenseorindefenseofothers.(Peoplev._Blakeley_(2000)23Cal.4th82,89,91;# #ԀA1 Peoplev._Randle_(2005)35Cal.4th  987,9941003# A1 #.)Eitherofthesecircumstancesnegatesmalice.# #    Involuntarymanslaughter isdefinedbystatuteasanunlawfulkillingwithout   malice inthecommissionofamisdemeanorwhichisinherentlydangeroustohumanlife,or inthecommissionofanact,ordinarilylawful,whichinvolvesahighdegreeofriskofdeathorgreatbodilyharm,withoutduecautionandcircumspection.# #Ԁ(192.)However, &"" involuntarymanslaughtercoversallunlawfulkillingsinwhichmalice(eitherexpressor implied)isnotproven. *&&   The felony-murderrule eliminatestheneedforproofofmaliceinconnectionwith   achargeofmurder,therebyrenderingirrelevantthepresenceorabsenceofactualmalice,bothwithregardtofirstdegreefelonymurderandseconddegreefelonymurder.  Becausemaliceisnotanelementoffelonymurder,circumstancesthatreducethecrimefrommurdertomanslaughter,suchasprovocationorimperfectself-defense,arenotrelevant.##  ! % b REVERSALSINHOMICIDECASESINTHESIXTHDISTRICT,   @qq#2004TOPRESENT# ! #2006REVERSALS   Noreversalsasof3/30/06.    2005REVERSALS(4reversals)   Peoplev.RussellMartinez(H025896)  Panelattorney:ArthurDudleyDate:July18,2005Appellantwalkedbyacarrepairshopwherealongtimenemesisnamed_Cerna_Ԁwasworking.Theymaddoggedeachother._Cerna_Ԁpointedapaintspraygunatappellant._Cerna_sfriendcalledappellantafaggot.Appellantwenthome,gotagun,returnedtwohourslater,firedat_Cerna_Ԁbutinsteadshotandkilled_Cerna_sfriend.Ajuryconvictedappellantofseconddegreemurderandattemptedmurder.Thecourtofappealreversedbecausethetrialcourtrefusedtoinstructonheatofpassion.Foryears,appellanthadbeen harassed,beatenandintimidatedby_Cerna_.Theyearsofprovocationweresufficientto +'& requireheatofpassioninstructions,despitethetwohour coolingoffperiod..(StaffattorneyPaulCouenhoven) Timothy_Parle_Ԁv.Runnels(N.D.Cal.No.C0103487WHA)  Panelattorney:MartinBuchananDate:July12,2005{Ajuryconvicteddefendantinthemurderofhiswife.Evidenceshowedthetwohadbeenphysicallyandemotionallyabusivetoeachother.TheSixthDistrictCourtofAppealagreedthetrialcourtmadenumerousevidentiaryerrorsbutfoundtheywereallharmless:(1)itshouldhaveexcludedthetestimonyofdefendantspsychiatristbecausedefendantinvokedthepsychotherapistprivilege;(2)itshouldhavepermittedhisexpertwitnesstestifyastotheeffectsofamanicepisode;(3)itshouldhaveadmittedportionsoftheconditionalexaminationofdefendantsfatherwhodescribeddefendantsmentalconditiononthenightoftheincident,(4)itshouldhaveadmittedevidenceofthevictimscharacterforviolenceandthreatsagainstdefendant,and(5)itshouldhaveexcludeddefendantsthreatsagainstthepolicefiveyearsaftertheincident.AftertheSupremeCourtdeniedreview,MartinBuchananfiledafederalhabeaspetition.Thedistrictcourtinitiallygrantedreliefonthegroundthatadmissionofthevictimsdiarywasunreliableandviolatedhisrightofconfrontation.TheNinthCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedbecausethestatementsinthediarywerenottestimonial.Onremand,thedistrictcourtgrantedreliefbecausethecumulativeprejudiceoftheremainingerrorsdeprivedhimofafairtrial.(StaffattorneyMichaelKresser) ,(( Peoplev.SalvadorGarcia,DanielRiosandJesusSalazar(H026159)  Panelattorneys:C.ElliotKessler,PhilipBrooks,andTara_Mulay_Date:April28,2005Appellantswerechargedwiththreecountsofmurderwithspecialcircumstances.Thejuryreturnedverdictsfindingthemguiltyofthelesserincludedoffensesofinvoluntarymanslaughter.Inthiscase,thedefendantswerepreviouslyattackedbygangmembers.Afterarmingthemselves,theyreturnedlaterinacartofindfriendsandidentifytheirearlierattackerssotheycouldreportthemtopolice.Upontheirreturn,12to15menstarted walkingrealfasttowardsthecar.Afraidforhislife,oneofthedefendantsfiredhisgunseveraltimes,killingthreepeople.Onappeal,Thecourtofappealreversedbecausethetrialcourt,whichinstructedonimperfectselfdefense,refusedtoinstructonselfdefense.(StaffattorneyMichaelKresser)Peoplev.Jose_Solorio_(H025573)  Panelattorney:CliffGardnerDate:February2,2005"Amongotherthings,appellantwasconvictedoffivecountsofattemptedmurder,andactivelyparticipatinginagang(Pen.Code,186.22,subd.(a))withanenhancementforpersonallyinflictinggreatbodilyinjuryunderPenalCodesection12022.7.Appellanthadshotatfourrivalgangmembersandabystanderwasshot.Thecourteffectivelyinstructedthejuryofthetheoryoftransferredintentwhichdoesnotapplytoattemptedmurder.heconvictionforattemptedmurderofthebystanderwasreversed.(StaffattorneyDallasSacher) ,((  2004REVERSALS(4reversals)   Peoplev.Fernando_Dominguez_(H022727)  Staffattorney:DallasSacherDate:May12,2004/December14,2004%Appellantanda_codefendant_Ԁwerechargedwithrape,_kidnapping_,andfirstdegreemurder.Itappearedfromthefactsthatthe_codefendant_Ԁkilledthevictim,buttheinstructionsonfelonymurderdidnotdescribewhenappellantcouldbefoundguiltyoffelonymurderbasedonthe_codefendant_Ԁkillingthevictim.Instead,theinstructiontoldthejuryappellantcouldbeguiltywheneverthevictimiskilledduringthecommissionofacertainfelony.Thiswasnotthestateofthelaw.Consequently,thecourtofappealreversedinapublisheddecision.TheSupremeCourtgrantedreviewandremandedittothecourtofappeal.Thecourtofappealagainreversedtheconvictionsforfelonymurderand_kidnapping_Ԁinapublisheddecision.TheSupremeCourtagaingrantedreview,andbriefshavebeenfiledinthatcourt.Peoplev.FidelHernandez(H025946)  Panelattorney:_Katarzyna_Ԁ_Kozik_Date:October22,2004*Ajuryconvictedappellantofmurder.Appellantandthevictimweresellingdrugs,andtheystoredthedrugsandmoneyinapublicstoragelocker.Althoughtheygenerallygotalong,theywereheardhavingaheatedargumentjustbeforeChristmas2001.Afewweekslater,theymetnearthelocker,andappellantkilledthevictim.Heclaimedheactedinselfdefense.Ininstructingonimperfectselfdefense,thecourtmodified_CALJIC_ԀNo.5.17tostatethatthedefensewasunavailablewhenthedefendant's wrongfulconductcreatedtheactualbutunreasonablebeliefintheneedtodefendhimself.Thecourtofappealdecided ,(( themodifiedinstructionwaserroneousbecausethecorrectlawwouldrequirewithdrawalofthedefenseonlyifthedefendant'sillegalconductledtothecircumstancesrequiringtheperceivedneedtodefendhimself.Thecourtofappealalsodecidedthetrialcourterredinnotinstructingonaprovocationtheoryforvoluntarymanslaughter.(StaffattorneyBillRobinson)Peoplev.LorenHerzog(H023906)   Panelattorney:Eric_Multhaup_Date:August18,2004/  Appellantwaschargedwithfivecountsofmurder.Thejuryconvictedhimofthreeofthemandfoundhimnotguiltyoftheremainingtwo.Eachofthemurderswereactuallycommittedbyhislongtimefriend,butappellantwasallegedlyculpableasanaiderandabettor.Appellantwassubjecttosevencustodialinterrogationsspanningsixdays.Thetrialcourtruledthatappellantinvokedhisrighttosilenceintheearlierinterrogations,eventhoughtheofficerscontinuedtoquestionhim.Thetrialcourtsuppressedhisstatementsaftertheinvocations.Thetrialcourtadmittedstatementsfromthelastthreeinterrogationswhichoccurredonthefinaltwodays.Appellantarguedthestatementsshouldhavebeensuppressedbecausetheywereinvoluntaryasaresultoftheofficerscontinuingtoquestionhimafterheinvokedhisrighttosilenceduringtheearlierinterrogations.Thecourtofappealagreed.Althoughitisnotcategoricallyforbiddentoreinterrogateafterabreakasuspectwhohadinvokedtherighttosilence,inthiscaseitwasconcludedthatunderthetotalityofthecircumstancesthestatementswerecoerced.Thepolicehaddisregardedpreviousinvocations,interrogatedhimoveraprolongedperiodoftime,delayedarraignment ,(( tocontinueinterrogationsbeforetheinevitableappointmentofcounsel,denigratedtheusefulnessofdefensecounselwhenheaskedaboutbeingassistedwithcounsel,falselytoldhimthatthe_codefendant_Ԁhadimplicatedhim,andimpliedthatifheconfessedtheconsequenceswouldbelessserious.Thecourtdecidedtheerrorwasprejudicial.Therewasnootherevidenceofhimbeingculpableoftwoofthemurders.Althoughtherewassomeevidenceimplicatinghiminthethirdmurder,itcouldnotbesaidhisstatementsdidnothaveapowerfuleffectinthejuryreturningitsverdict.Thejudgmentwasreversedinitsentirety.(StaffattorneyDallasSacher)Peoplev.FranciscoHernandez(H026258)  Panelattorney:JulieSchumerDate:May14,2004!8Thevictimwasshotdead,andawitnessidentifiedappellantastheshooter.Therewasevidencethatthecrimecouldhavebeencommittedbyathirdperson,Orozco.Attrial,thewitnessagainidentifiedappellantastheculprit,andshesaidshedidnotknowOrozco.Afterthetrial,thewitnessattemptedtoreceivewelfare.Inordertoqualify,shehadtodisclosewhothefatherofherchildrenwas.ShetoldadeputydistrictattorneythatOrozcowasthefatherofherdaughter.Appellantmovedforanewtrialwhichwasdenied.Thecourtofappealreversed.Itwasundisputedthiswaslegitimatelynewlydiscoveredevidence.Thecourtofappealhelditwasmaterialandrequiredanewtrial.(StaffattorneyBillRobinson) ,((    !HOMICIDECASESINTHEUNITEDSTATESSUPREMECOURT   # ! ;# DECISIONS,PASTTHREEYEARS  (x Nopublishedcasesinthepastthreeyearsspecificallyaddresshomicideissues,otherthaninthedeathpenaltycontext.Herearecasesonissueswhichfrequentlyariseinhomicidecases,aswellasothers.A1  A.0  (Missouriv._Seibert_Ԁ(2004)__U.S.__(021371).)6/28/04.# A1G=#A1 Ԁ_Seibert_Ԁwasconvicted (x  ofseconddegreemurder.# A1=#A1 Oregonv._Elstad_Ԁ(1985)470U.S.298(1985)heldthata 0  suspectwhoinitiallyanswersquestionswithoutreceivingMirandawarningscannot 0 usethatasbasistosuppresssubsequentvoluntarystatementsgivenafterbeingMirandized._Seibert_heldOregonv._Elstad_doesnotapplywhenthepolice 0 intentionallyforegoMirandawarnings,obtainaconfession,thengiveMiranda 0 warnings,andhavedefendantrepeattheconfession.ThesecondstatementisinadmissiblewhenpoliceintentionallysidesteprequirementsofMiranda.# A1>#A1 0(#(#  B.0  # A1A#A1 _Fellers_Ԁv.UnitedStates(2004)540U.S.519(026320).)Inadrugcase,Supreme 0 Courtheldthe8thCircuithaderredbyusingaFifthAmendmentanalysistofind_Fellers_Ԁhadknowinglyandvoluntarilymadestatementstopolice.Courtshouldhaveinsteadapplied_Massiah_,whichfoundaSixthAmendmentviolationoccurswhenthe 8%  governmentdeliberatelyelicitsincriminatingstatementsfromadefendantafterheisformallycharged.B.` hp x (#XB# A1KB#A1 8)$$(#(#  C.0  # A1E#A1 Banksv._Dretke_(2004)540U.S.668(028286).)2/24/4.Infelonymurdercase, 8+&& whereevidenceshowedthattheprosecutionfailedtodisclose(1)thatonewitness @-(( hadbeenintensivelycoachedbypoliceandprosecutors,and(2)thatanotherwitnesswasapaidinformant,thefederalappellatecourterredindismissingthedefendants  Bradyv.Marylandclaimanddenyingthedefendantacertificateof_appealability_.# A1E# (#(# PENDINGCASESINUNITEDSTATESSUPREMECOURT    Nomurderissuespending,butthefollowingareofinterest:A1  A.0  Doesanallegedvictim'sstatementstoa911operatornamingherassailantadmitted   as"excitedutterances"underajurisdiction'shearsaylawconstitute"testimonial"statementssubjecttotheConfrontationClauserestrictionsenunciatedin  Crawford  v.WashingtonIed  ݀(2004)541U.S.36?(  Davisv.WashingtonYJed  ݀(Wash.2005)111P.3d  844,cert.granted10/31/05(055224).) (#(#  B.0  Isanoralaccusationmadetoaninvestigatingofficeratthesceneofanallegedcrime  atestimonialstatementwithinthemeaningof  Crawfordv.WashingtonKed  ݀(2004)541  U.S.36?(  _Hammon_Ԁv.IndianaKLed  ݀(Ind.2005)829N.E.2d444,cert.granted10/31/05  (055705).)B.` hp x (#XB# A1H#(#(#  C.0  A1 Whereacriminaldefendantraisesaduressdefense,shouldtheburdenofpersuasion   beonthegovernmenttoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthedefendantwasnotunderduress,oruponthedefendanttoproveduressbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.(  Dixonv.UnitedStatesNed  ݀(5thCir.2005)413F.3d520,cert.gr.1/13/06(05 &"" 7053).)[NB:thiswouldonlyberelevantinafelonymurderprosecution,sinceduresscannotbeadefensetomurder]B.` hp x (#XB# A1M#*&&(#(#  ,((    !@HOMICIDECASESINTHECALIFORNIASUPREMECOURT# ! P#    DECISIONS,PASTTHREEYEARS  (x  A.0  A1 (  Peoplev.SmithQed  ݀(2005)37Cal.4th733(S123074)# A1uQ#A1 .Theevidencewassufficientto ( x supportthejury'sverdictoftwocountsofattemptedmurdereventhoughSmithonlyfiredonebulletatacarcontaininghisintendedvictimandthevictimsbaby.Thesinglebulletfiredintothevehiclenarrowlymissedboththemotherandinfant.Motiveisn'tanelementofthecrime;intentionallyfiringaweaponatsomeoneshowsanintenttokill.B.` hp x (#XB# A1+R#0(#(# A1  B.0  Peoplev.Howard(2005)34Cal.4th1129# A1fT#A1 .Thecrimeofdrivingwithwillful 0 disregardforsafetywhileevadinganofficer(_Veh_.Code,2800.2)isnotaninherentlydangerousfelonyforpurposesoftheseconddegreefelonymurderlaw.Theelementofwantonandwillfuldisregardforhumanlifeundersection2800.2canbeestablishedbyprovingthatthedefendantcommittedthreetrafficviolationsassignedapointcountundertheVehicleCode.Applicabletrafficviolationsincludeanumberwhichareclearlynotinherentlydangeroustohumanlife.Thus,thetrialcourterredininstructingthejurytoconvictthedefendantofmurderifitfoundthathehadkilledthevictiminthecommissionofaviolationofsection2800.2.B.` hp x (#XB# A1T#8% (#(#  C.0  A1 Peoplev._Randle_,supra,35Cal.4th987(S117370/A097168).# A1X#A1 ԀTheSupremeCourt 8'"" affirmedthereversalofappellant'sseconddegreemurderconvictionbecausethetrialcourterredinrefusingtoinstructontheimperfectdefenseofanother.Further,itwaserrorunderthecircumstancesofthiscaseforthetrialcourttohaveinstructedthejury @-(( thatitcouldconvictofseconddegreefelonymurderbasedonappellant'sdischargeofafirearminagrosslynegligentmanner. (#(#  D.0  Peoplev.Wright(2005)35Cal.4th964(S119067/C039031).# A14Y#A1  Thequestion  presentedwaswhetherthedoctrineofimperfectselfdefenseapplieswherethedefendantsactualbutunreasonablebeliefintheneedtodefendhimselfisbasedonadelusionresultingfrommentalillnessattributabletomethamphetamineabuse. (#(#  0  TheCourtdeclinedtoreachtheissuebecausethedefendantwasabletoclaimimperfectselfdefense,thejuryheardevidencesupportingthatdefense,andsothetrialcourtexclusionofadditionalevidencebyadefenseexpertsupportingthatdefensewasnotprejudicial. (#(#  E.0  Peoplev.Garcia(2005)36Cal.4th777(S124003/A098872).# A1[#A1 Whenatrialcourt  permitsajurytorevisitacrimesceneafterthejuryhasbegundeliberations,thedefendantandhisorhercounselhavetherighttobepresentandtoobservewhatoccursduringthejuryvisit.Areturnvisitcarriesasubstantiallygreaterriskthatthejurywillbeexposedtoneworimproperevidence,thanwhenevidenceisexaminedinthejurydeliberationroom.B.` hp x (#XB# A1^#A1 Firstdegreemurderwithlyinginwaitspecial " circumstancereversed. (#(#  F.0  # A1`#A1 Peoplev._Cavitt_(2004)33Cal.4th187(S105058/A081492/A088117).# A1a#A1 ԀTheissuewas &"" whetheranaccompliceisliableforfirstdegreemurderunderthefelonymurderrulewheneverakillingiscommittedwhiletheaccompliceandtheactualkillerarejointlyengagedinafelony,orisanaccompliceliableonlywherethekillingiscommitted ,(( infurtheranceofacommonpurposeordesigntocommittheunderlyingfelonyTheCourtheldthefelonymurderrulerequiresbothacausalrelationshipandatemporalonebetweentheunderlyingfelonyandtheactresultingindeath.Causalrelationshipisestablishedbyproofofalogicalnexus,beyondmerecoincidenceoftimeandplace,betweentheactandtheunderlyingfelonytheaccomplicecommittedorattemptedtocommit.Temporalrelationshipisestablishedbyproofofthefelonyandthehomicidalactwerepartofonecontinuoustransaction.Thus,eveniftheaccompliceleftbeforethekillingwasdone,theyarestillliableforfirstdegreefelonymurder.B.` hp x (#XB# A1Ib#A1 (#(#  G.0  # A1f#A1 Peoplev.Taylor(2002)32Cal.4th863(S112443/A095412).# A1g#A1 Adefendantmaybe  heldliablefortheseconddegree,impliedmalicemurderofafetusevenwherehewasunawareofthewoman'spregnancy. (#(# B.` hp x (#XB  h  S H.0  Peoplev.Robertson(2004)34Cal.4th156(S118034/A095055).# A1g#A1 ԀThemerger  doctrine(seePeoplev.Ireland(1969)70Cal.2d522;Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9  Cal.4th300)# A1~i#A1 Ԁdoesnotbaraninstructiononseconddegreemurderbasedonafelony   murdertheorywherethepredicateoffenseisdischargingafirearminagrosslynegligentmanner(Pen.Code,246.3).# A1]j#A1 hh݌$ (#(# Ќ  S# A1xk#A1  I.0  # A1l#A1   Peoplev._Monterroso_ljury  ݀(2004)34Cal.4th743(S034473).# A1il#A1 Admissionofadying 'c"" declarationdoesnotviolatetheConfrontationClauseoftheSixthAmendment.The Courtnotedthatthe  Crawford njury  ݀opinionspecificallyexcepteddyingdeclarationsfrom +k&& thegeneralholdingthattestimonialstatementsmustbeexcludedintheabsenceofcrossexamination.B.` hp x (#XB# A1Rm#A1 (#(#  J.0  # A1yo#A1 Peoplev.Lee(2003)31Cal.4th613(S094597/F028940).# A1o#A1 ԀInordertobeconvicted  ofanattempttocommitwillful,deliberateandpremeditatedmurderanaiderandabettorneednotpersonallyactwithpremeditationanddeliberation.Itisenoughthattheattemptedmurderiswillful,deliberate,andpremeditated.B.` hp x (#XB# A1vp#A1  (#(#  K.0  # A1r#A1 Peoplev._Billa_(2003)31Cal.4th1064(S111341/C037717).# A1r#A1 ԀFelonymurderrule   applieswhereanaccompliceaccidentallykillshimselfwhilejointlyengagedwiththedefendantintheperpetrationoftheunderlyingfelonyofarson.B.` hp x (#XB# A1&s#A1 (#(#  L.0  # A1it#A1 Peoplev.Dent(2003)30Cal.4th213(S024645).# A1t#A1 ԀThetrialcourterroneouslydenied  aselfrepresentationrequestmadebyadefendantinadeathpenaltycase.Althoughtheevidenceagainstappellantwasoverwhelming,andtherecordshowshewasadequatelyrepresentedbytwoappointedcounselandreceivedafairtrial,thetrialcourtdeniedthedefendant'sselfrepresentationrequestbecauseofitsmisunderstandingofthelaw.Erroneousdenialofa_Faretta_motionisreversibleper   se. (#(# # A1Uu#A1  PENDINGCASESINCALIFORNIASUPREMECOURT  $   A.0  Areallstatementsmadebyanostensiblecrimevictimtoapoliceofficerinresponse &"" togeneralinvestigativequestioning"testimonialhearsay"withinthemeaningofCrawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36# A1w#A1 Ԁandinadmissibleintheabsenceofan * && opportunitytocrossexaminethe_declarant_,ordoes"testimonialhearsay"include , (( onlystatementsmadeinresponsetoaformalinterviewatapolicestation?(People  v.Cage(2004)120Cal.App.4th770,rev.granted10/13/04(S127344/E034242).)# A1Ay#A1   ReviewhasalsobeengrantedonCrawfordissuesin(#(# B.` hp x (#XB  {  S S  S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1{#C4   #C4|#A1 Peoplev.Adams(2004)120Cal.App.4th1065,rev.granted10/13/04  S (S127373/C040891){{݌̌  S  XB.` hp x (#XB  =~  S f  S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1}#C4   #C4 #A1 Peoplev.Caudillo(2004)122Cal.App.4th1417,mod.123Cal.App.4th1106a,rev.   granted1/12/05(S129212/H026166)=~X~݌̌  S  XB.` hp x (#XB    So l  S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1r#C4   #C4#A1 Peoplev._Kilday_(2004)123Cal.App.4th406,rev.granted1/19/05 o  (S129567/A099095)Ҁ݌̌  S  XB.` hp x (#XB  2  S%u" S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1#C4   #C4#A1 Peoplev.Lee(2004)124Cal.App.4th483,rev.granted3/16/05(S130570/B166204)2M݌ %u  Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB    S+ S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1g#C4   #C4m#A1 Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121Cal.App.4th1551,mod.122Cal.App.4th823c,rev. +  granted11/17/04(S128417/D042215)݌̌  S  XB.` hp x (#XB    S> S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1#C4   #C4#A1 Peoplev.Rivas,unpublishedopn.,rev.granted4/13/05(S131315/B171183)݌  Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB  R  SGD S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A16#C4   #C45#A1 Peoplev.Ruiz,unpublishedopn.,rev.granted1/19/05(S129498/B169642)Rm݌ G Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB    SM S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1#C4   #C4#A1   Peoplev.Wang1/12  ,unpublishedopn.,rev.gr.3/23/05(S130916/B164939)݌ M Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB  9  S` S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1׍#C4   #C4#A1   Peoplev.Herring1/12  ,unpublishedopn.,rev.gr.7/27/05(S134398/A104624)9T݌  Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB  ӑ  Sif S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1n#C4   #C4#A1   Peoplev.Wahlert'1/12  ݀(2005)130Cal.App.4th709,rev.gr.9/28/05(S135805/E035174).݌̌   S݌  ӑ݌ i    XB.` hp x (#XB    Sy S X?+ ` hp x (#X? # A1#C4   #C4ו#A1   InreT.W.H1/12  ݀unpublishedopn.,rev.gr.10/26/05(S136916/B175355).݌  Ќ  S  XB.` hp x (#XB# A1)#A1  B.0  Doesthementalstaterequiredforimpliedmaliceincludeonlyconsciousdisregard /" forhumanlife,orcanitbesatisfiedbyanawarenessthattheactislikelytoresultingreatbodilyinjury?DidthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretioningrantingdefendantKnoller'smotionfornewtrialunderPenalCodesection1181,subdivision(6),astoherconvictionforseconddegreemurder.?(  Peoplev.Noel1/12  ݀(2005)128Cal.App.4th 7*% 1391,rev.gr.7/27/05(S134543/A099366).)B.` hp x (#XB# A1ϗ#7,' (#(#  C.0  A1 Whentheevidencepresentedatthepreliminaryhearingindicatesthatdefendantpaid  anindividualwhodefendantbelievedwasahiredassassin(butwhoactuallywasanundercoverofficer)tomurderaspecifiedvictimandgavetheostensibleassassininformationaboutthevictim,candefendantbeprosecutedforattemptedmurderoronlyforsolicitationofmurder?(  Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Decker)1/12  ݀(2004)124   Cal.App.4th104,rev.granted2/23/05(S130489/B176608).) (#(# B.` hp x (#XB# A1#A1  D.0  Didthetrialcourtadequatelyinstructthejurywithrespecttotheliabilityofanaider   andabettorforfelonymurderundertheprinciplesof  Peoplev._Cavitt_۞1/12  ݀(2004)33  Cal.4th187,andwasanyerrorprejudicial?(  Peoplev._Dominguez_1/12  ݀(2004)124  Cal.App.4th1270,mod.125Cal.App.4th699b,rev.gr.3/30/05(S130860/H022727).)ThisisstaffattorneyDallasSacherscase.B.` hp x (#XB# A1#Ԁ(#(#  ISSUESINHOMICIDECASESGENERALTHOUGHTS      A.0  ALWAYSCONSIDERISSUESWHICHARENOTUNIQUETOHOMICIDE  CASES,PARTICULARLYFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALISSUES  (#(#      IntheSixthDistrict,BradyerrorandaFifthAmendmentviolation(involuntary   confession)haveresultedinreversalsduringthepastthreeyears.  InrecentUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcriminalcases,FifthAmendment(coercedconfession),SixthAmendment(elicitingstatementsafteradefendantwasformallycharged) andBradyclaimshavesucceeded. (##   InrecentCaliforniaSupremeCourthomicidecases,therightofadefendanttobepresentwhenthejuryvisitsacrimescene,andadefendantsrighttoselfrepresentation(_Faretta_)havesucceeded.     IntheNinthCircuit,afterlosingintheSixthDistrict,MartinBuchananobtainedareversalinahomicidecasebasedonevidentiaryrulingswhichadverselyimpactedadefendantsrighttopresentadefenseandtoafairtrial.(_Parle_Ԁv.Runnels.)       Federalconstitutionalerrors,inparticular,canfrequentlyresultinreversalbecausethestandardforreversaliseitherperse(_Faretta_error,someinstructionalerrors,other  structuralerrors)orsubjecttothemorestringentChapmanstandardforprejudice,  (Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18),underwhichFtheStatemust prove[]beyond  areasonabledoubtthattheerrorcomplainedofdidnotcontributetotheverdictobtained.(_Satterwhite_v.Texas(1988)486U.S.249,25859;seealso,Arizonav._Fulminante_(1991)  499U.S.279,294295.)#F##_#   B.0  INSTRUCTIONALISSUESINHOMICIDECASES (#(#   Whileotherissuesmustbeconsidered,instructionalissuesmostfrequentlyresultinreversalsinhomicidecases.FiveoftheeightreversalsinhomicidecasesintheSixthDistrictinthepastthreeyearsareduetoinstructionalerror.  Therearethreereasonswhichexplainthepredominanceofhomicidereversalsbasedoninstructionalerrors:b PGIJKLMNO(?xx3Hb G3   G32?x3  0    Thecomplexityofhomicidelaw.Drugortheftcasesmighthaveonejuryinstruction *&& whichisspecifictothecrime.Ahomicidecase,incontrastcaneasilyhaveadozen ,(( oreventwodozen.Afterinstructingonthegeneralprinciplesofmurder,acourtmayhavetoinstructonexpressandimpliedmalice,premeditationanddeliberation,felonymurder,selfdefense,imperfectselfdefenseandheatofpassion.Thesheervolumeofapplicableinstructionsleavesthatmuchmoreroomforerror.G3݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Thecourthasanindependentdutytoprovidecorrectinstructions.Thus,itdoesnot   matterwhetherdefensecounselrequests,orobjectsto,aninstruction.Waiverisrarelyanissue.G3Я݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Ifachallengedoromittedinstructioninvolvesanessentialelementofthecrime,the  errorissubjecttothestringentChapmanstandardforprejudice.G3I݌(#(# Ќ  Generalprincipleswhichhelpusarguejuryinstructionalissues: G3   G3Ʋ2?x3  0    Q1 Atrialcourtmustinstructthejuryonthose generalprinciplesoflawthatareclosely  andopenlyconnectedwiththefactsbeforethecourtandnecessaryforthejury'sunderstandingofthecase.(Peoplev.Price(1991)1Cal.4th324,442# Q17#.)G3Ʋ݌(#(# Ќ  <( 4 <DLX<Q1 0  Thisdutyimplementsthestateandfederaldueprocessrighttoajurydetermination  ofallelementsoftheoffensecharged.(See_Mullaney_v.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684,   697698;_Sandstrom_v.Montana(1979)442U.S.510,512514# Q1#.)Itspurposeis to " assure,intheinterestofjustice,themostaccuratepossibleverdictencompassedbythechargeandsupportedbytheevidence.(Peoplev._Elize_(1999)17Cal.App.4th &"" 605,613.) (#(#  G3   G32?x3  0    Despitethelackofanobjectionorarequestforaninstruction,errorsinvolvingjury *&& instructionscanusuallyberaisedonappealbecauseitaffectsthedefendants ,(( substantialrights.(SeePen.Code,1259;Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470,  482,fn.7.)G3&݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Thecourthasanindependentdutytorefrainfromgivinginstructionswhichhaveno  applicabilitytothefactsofthecase. Thecourtshouldinstructoneverytheoryofthecase,butonlytotheextenteachissupportedbysubstantialevidence.[Citation.](Peoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668,685.)Substantialevidenceis    evidencefromwhichajurycomposedofreasonablemencouldhaveconcludedthatthetheoryappliedtothefacts.(Id.at684.) Thisprinciple....isimplicitlybased  ontheconcernthatthegivingofunnecessaryinstructions--evenifabstractlycorrect--increasesthepotentialforjuryconfusion.(Peoplev.Schultz(1987)192  Cal.App.3d535,539.)Theviceofafactuallyinapplicableinstructionisthatit tendstoconfuseandmisleadthejurybyinjectingintothecasematterswhichtheundisputedevidenceshowsarenotinvolved.(Peoplev.Jackson(1954)42Cal.2d  540,546-547.)G3.݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Thecourthasanindependentdutytodefinetermsthathaveatechnicalmeaning   peculiartothelaw.(Peoplev.Bland(2002)28Cal.4th313,334.#d#) Awordor " phrasehavingatechnical,legalmeaningrequiringclarificationbythecourtisonethathasadefinitionthatdiffersfromitsnonlegalmeaning.[Citation.](Peoplev. &"" Griffin(2004)33Cal.4th1015,1023.)G3݌($$(#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Appellatereviewisdenovo,withnodeferencegiventothetrialcourtsdecision. *&&  Whetherornottogiveanyparticularinstructioninanyparticularcaseentailsthe ,(( resolutionofamixedquestionoflawandfactthat...ishoweverpredominantlylegal.Assuch,itshouldbeexaminedwithoutdeference.(Peoplev._Waidla_(2000)22  Cal.4th690,##Ԁ733.)#5#G3݌(#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Ifyouarguethecourtfailedtoinstructonalesserincludedoffenseoradefense,you   canrecitethefactsinthewaywhichsupportstheinstruction,avoidingtheneedtorecitethefactsinamannerwhichsupportsthejudgement.Theevidenceattrialmustbeevaluatedwithanemphasisonfactswhichwouldsupporttheinstruction.(People   v.King(1978)22Cal.3d12,15.)G3݌(#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Iftheinstructionalerrorlowerstheprosecutorsburdenofprovinganessential  elementoftheoffense,itisthePeoplesburdentoestablishthattheerrorwas  harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(_Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,19.)##Ԁ  Furthermore,ifthecourtinstructsthejuryonaninvalidlegaltheory,reversalisautomaticunlessthecourtcanspecificallydeterminethejuryresolvedthecasesolelyonthebasisofavalidtheoryofguilt.(Peoplev._Guiton_(1993)4Cal.4th1116,  11281129.G3I݌ (#(# Ќ   ISSUESINFIRSTDEGREEFELONYMURDERCASES  "   Firstdegreefelonymurderisakillingoccurringduringthecommissionofspecified p%  inherentlydangerousfelonieswhicharelistedinPenalCodesection189.Thelistedfeloniesincludearson,rape,otherforciblesexcrimes,_carjacking_,robbery,burglary,mayhemand _kidnapping_. p+&&   Ifyourclientwasconvictedoffirstdegreefelonymurder,thatwastheonlytheory presented,andtheonlytheorywasthatyourclientdidthekilling,therearefewhomicidespecificissueswhichcanberaised.Youshouldinsteadfocusondiscoveringothererrors.Thisisbecausefelonymurderisastrictliabilityoffense.Yourclient'sstateofmindinreferencetothekillingisirrelevant.Thefelonymurderruleholdsafelon strictlyresponsibleforanykillingcommittedbyacofelon,whetherintentional,negligent,oraccidental,duringtheperpetrationorattemptedperpetrationofthefelony.(Peoplev.   _Cavitt_(2004)33Cal.4th187,197.)    Inafirstdegreefelonymurdercase,homiciderelatedissuesarisemorefrequentlywhenyourclientisnotthekiller.Anonkillertriedforfelonymurderisonlyguiltyofmurderifthereis bothacausalrelationshipandatemporalrelationshipbetweentheunderlyingfelonyandtheactresultingindeath.(Id.atp.193.)Atemporalrelationship   isestablishedbyproofthefelonyandthehomicidalactwerepartofonecontinuoustransaction.(Ibid.)Acausalrelationship isestablishedbyproofofalogicalnexus,  beyondmerecoincidenceoftimeandplace,betweenthehomicidalactandtheunderlyingfelonythenonkillercommittedorattemptedtocommit.(Ibid.) "  G3   G32?x3  0    Thecourthasanindependentdutytoinstructonthisprincipaloflaw(containedin $  _CALJIC_Ԁ8.27and_CALCRIM_Ԁ540B)inacasewherethereisevidencethedefendanttriedforfelonymurderisnotthekiller.ThiswastheholdinginPeoplev. ($$  _Dominguez_(2005)125Cal.App.4th699b(reviewgranted.)IntheSupremeCourt *&& (casenumberS130860)theAttorneyGeneralhasconcededthecourterredwhenitfailedtogivethisinstruction.G3݌ (#(#    G3   G32?x3  0    Itispossiblethekillingmayhavenocausalrelationshipwiththefelony,inwhich  caseanonkillerisnotguiltyofmurderevenifheisguiltyoftheunderlyingfelony.ThefollowingexampleisfoundinPeoplev._Cavitt_,supra:whilepeopleare   burglarizingahouse,oneoftheburglarslooksoutawindowandseeshismortalenemyoutside.Heshootsandkillshim.Underthisscenariothereisnocausalrelationshipbetweenthefelonyandthekilling.(Peoplev._Cavitt_,supra,33Cal.4th  atpp.200,203.)However,otherthanextremefactslikethis,almostanykillingperpetratedduringthecommissionofafelonywillhaveacausalrelationshipwiththefelony.Onlyifthekilling iscompletelyunrelatedtothefelonycanthenonkiller  escapeliability.(Ibid.,emphasisadded.)Evenifthekillerhassomeindependent  animusagainstthevictimofthefelonyandkillsthevictimbasedonthatanimus,otherswhoparticipatedinthefelonywillbeliableforfelonymurder.(Id.atpp.202  203.)G3.݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G32?x3  0    Anonkillerisnotliableforakillingcommittedbeforehejoinsin,oraidsandabets, " theunderlyingfelony.(Peoplev._Pulido_Ԁ(1997)15Cal.4th713.)Iftherearefacts $  suggestingthedefendantontrialdidnotaidandabetthefelonyuntilafterakillingwascommitted,arguethetrialcourtmustinstructonthisprincipaloflaw.Note,however,theSupremeCourtdeclinedtodecidewhethertherewasanindependentdutytoinstructonthisprinciple,insteadfindinganyinstructionalerrorwasharmless. ,(( (Id.,atpp.726727.)However,thecourtstatedthestandardinstruct mayrequire  modificationtoincludethisprincipleoflawifwarrantedbythefacts.(Id.,atp.  728.)_CALCRIM_Ԁ540Bcontainsabracketedparagraphaddressingthisissue,buttheusenotereferstoitasa pinpointinstructionwhichmustbegivenonlyuponrequest.Tothecontrary,thisisastandardpartoftheinstructiononaidingandabetting.Anessentialelementofaidingandabettingliabilityisthat"beforeor   duringthecommissionofthecrime,thedefendantintendedtoaidandabetthe   perpetratorincommittingthecrime."(_CALCRIM_Ԁ401.)Thetrialcourthasa_sua__sponte_Ԁdutytoinstructonaidingandabettingwhentheprosecutionreliesonitasatheoryofculpability.(Peoplev._Beeman_(1984)35Cal.3d547,560561.)The_sua_  _sponte_Ԁdutyextendstoinstructionsonmerepresenceatthesceneandwithdrawalfromparticipationinthecrime.(SeePeoplev.Boyd(1990)222Cal.App.3d541,  557,fn.14;Peoplev.Ross(1979)92Cal.App.3d391,404405.)Itshouldequally  extendtoaninstructionthatintenttoaid,andaid,mustbepresentbeforeorduringthecommissionofthecrime.G3݌ (#(# Ќ  0  Shouldthedurationofthecrimeofmurderbeanissueindeterminingwhenthedefendantjoinedthecriminalenterprise,argueamurderendswhentheactwhichcausesdeathends,notwhenthevictimdies.B.` hp x (#XBA1 PenalCodesection187,subdivision &"" (b),refersto anactwhichresultsindeath.Section188refersto thedoingofan ($$ actwithexpressorimpliedmalice.Section194refersto theactwhichcauses *&& death._CALJIC_Ԁ3.40,instructingoncausation,refersto anunlawfulactoromission ,(( whichwasacauseofdeath._CALCRIM_Ԁ620(oncausation)refersto anact[which]  causesdeath.Arulingthatthedurationofamurdercontinuesuntilthevictimdieswouldproduceabsurdresultssincethevictimcansurviveforweeks,monthsandevenyears(see194)andstillbeamurdervictim.# A1# (#(# 0  NOTE:thisissuecouldariseinanonfelonymurdercase,whereadefendantistriedformurderonanaidingandabettingtheory.Theremaybeabasistoarguethecourtfailedtoinstructthejurythatliabilityasanaiderandabetteronlyattacheswhenthedefendantprovidesaidbeforeorduringthemurder.A1 (#(#  G3   G32?x3  0    Thekillingdoesnothavetooccurwhilethefelonyisbeingcommitted.Itisenough  ifthefelonyandthekilling arepartsofonecontinuoustransaction.(Peoplev.  _Cavitt_,supra,33Cal.4thatp.206.)In_Cavitt_,akillingallegedlycommittedbyone  participantinthefelonyfivetotenminutesafterthefelonyhadendedwaspartofonecontinuoustransaction.TheSupremeCourtsaid,however,ifthatpersonkilledthevictimtwoweekslater,thisrequirementwouldnotbemet.G3I݌ (#(# Ќ  0  In_Cavitt_,theSupremeCourtstated# A1# thereisno_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoclarifythe   principlesoftherequisiterelationshipbetweenthefelonyandthehomicidewithout " regardtowhethertheevidencesupportssuchaninstruction.A1 (Peoplev._Cavitt_, $  supra,33Cal.4thatp.204,emphasisadded.)Thissuggeststhatiftheevidence does &""  raisethequestionwhetherthefelonyandthekilling arepartsofonecontinuous ($$ transactionthecourtwouldhavetogiveanappropriateinstruction,suchas_CALCRIM_Ԁ549.Iftheevidenceraisesaquestiononthisissue,# A1#itwouldbea ,((  principle[]closelyandopenlyconnectedwiththefactsbeforethecourt,andwhicharenecessaryforthejury'sunderstandingofthecase.A1 (Ibid.,citationomitted.)(#(#  G3   G3,2?x3  0    Thekillingmustbecommittedbyoneofthefelonsforfelonymurdertoapply.  (Peoplev.Washington(1965)62Cal.2d777,783.)However,thevictimneednot   beanonfelon.ifoneofthefelonsaccidentallykillshimself,thefelonymurderruleapplies.(Peoplev._Billa_(2003)31Cal.4th1064.)G3,W݌ (#(# Ќ    G3   G3k2?x3  0    Whileduressisnotadefensetomurder(see26;# A1#Q1 Peoplev.Anderson(2002)28   Cal.4th767,772784# Q18#A1 ),itcanberaisedasadefensetothefelonywhichisthebasis  ofafelonymurdertheory.(# A1#Q1 Seeid.;see,also,Peoplev._Coffman_ԀandMarlow(2004)  34Cal.4th1,100n.31.)# Q1#ԀG3k݌(#(# Ќ  8  0`   <( 4 <DLX<Q1 [_D]uress_Ԁcan,ineffect,provideadefensetomurderonafelony  murdertheorybynegatingtheunderlyingfelony.(SeePeoplev.  Anderson(1991)233Cal.App.3d1646,16661667,fn.18[];Perkins  &Boyce,CriminalLaw[(3ded.1982)],ch.9,# Q1 #TE,' #TE,#Q1 Ԁ2,pp.10581059;  _LaFave_,CriminalLaw[(3ded.2000)],# Q1#TE,' #TE,#Q1 Ԁ5.3(b),pp.468469.)Ifone   isnotguiltyoftheunderlyingfelonyduetoduress,onecannotbeguiltyoffelonymurderbasedonthatfelony.# Q1#Q1 Ԁ(<( 4 <DLX<# Q1#Q1 Peoplev.Anderson, $  supra,28Cal.4that784# Q1J#Q1 .)# Q1#A1 &""` `   # A1"#ISSUESINSECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDERCASES ##A1  ($$   Felonymurderpresentsthe hottestareaofcurrenthomicidelawinCalifornia.Overthepastthreeyears,fiveofthetwelveopinionsincriminalcasespublishedbytheCalifornia p-(( SupremeCourtconcernedissuesinfelonymurdercases.Threeofthoseinvolvedissuesinseconddegreefelonymurdercases.  # A1#Anunlawfulkillinginthecourseofthecommissionofafelonythatisinherently  dangeroustohumanlifebutisnotincludedamongthefeloniesenumeratedinsection189isseconddegreefelonymurder.(Peoplev.Robertson,supra,34Cal.4th156,164.)##    G3   G3I2?x3  0    FelonyMurderEliminates(orPresumes)Malice. Maliceisnotanelementina   felonymurderprosecution. Thefelonymurderruleeliminatestheneedforproofofmalice.(Peoplev.Robertson,supra,34Cal.4thatp.165.)Inoldercasesthe  SupremeCourtstatedmaliceispresumedorimputedinafelonymurdercase.(See,e.g.,##Peoplev.Hansen,supra,9Cal.4thatp.308;#m#Peoplev.Q1 _Satchell_(1971)6Cal.3d  28,34,43andfn.11;# Q1#Peoplev.Olsen(1889)80Cal.122,126127Q1 .# Q1#)ԀWhethermalice  ispresumedoreliminated,theonlyrequiredmentalstateistheintenttocommittheunderlyingfelony.Aslongasthatintentispresent,thedefendantisguiltyoffelonymurderevenifthekillingwasunintentional,accidental,ornegligent.(_CALCRIM_541A.)Thisdoctrineisparticularlyperniciousbecause,as malicehasbeeneliminatedasanelement,circumstancesthatmayservetoreducethecrimefrommurdertomanslaughter,suchasprovocationorimperfectself-defense,arenotrelevant.(Robertson,supra,atp.165.)Whilethesedefensesaredifficultto &"" imagineinfirstdegreefelonymurderprosecutions,theyfrequentlyappearinseconddegreefelonymurdercases.Thus,ifthedefendantallegedlycommitstheinherentlydangerousfelonyofshootingataninhabiteddwelling,shootingatanoccupied ,(( vehicle,ordischargingafirearmwithgrossnegligence,hewillnotbeabletorelyonheatofpassionorimperfectselfdefensetoreducethecrimetovoluntarymanslaughterifheistriedonafelonymurdertheory.G3It݌ (#(# Ќ   G3   G3 2?x3  0    ݀##A1  TheUnderlyingFelonyMustBeInherentlyDangerous .Thisissueproduceda   reversallastyearinPeoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4th1129.Recklessdriving   whileevadingapoliceofficer(_Veh_.Code2800.2)isnotaninherentlydangerousfelonybecausetheelementofwantonandwillfuldisregardforhumanlifecanbeestablishedbyprovingthedefendantcommittedthreetrafficviolationsassignedapointundertheVehicleCode.Theseincludedrivingonasuspendedlicense...G3 ( ݌ (#(# Ќ  0   ` Whetheracrimeisaninherentlydangerousfelonyisdeterminedbasedon theelementsofthefelonyintheabstract,nottheparticularfactsofthecase.Peoplev.  Henderson(1977)19Cal.3d86,9394.)Itdoesnotmatterhowinherentlydangerous  thedefendantsconductwasifthecrimecanbecommittedinwaysthatarenotinherentlydangerous.Thisissueisaquestionoflawforthecourt.(Peoplev.  Schaefer92004)118Cal.App.4th893,900902.) (#(# 0  Courthavefoundthefollowingareinherentlydangerousfelonies :"(#(# 0  ShootingFromaVehicleatanInhabitedDwelling(Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9 $  Cal.4th300,311; (#(# 0  ShootingatanInhabitedDwelling(Peoplev._Tabios_(1998)67Cal.App.4th1,910;($$(#(#  0  ShootingatOccupiedVehicle(Ibid.);*&&(#(# 0  GrosslyNegligentDischargeofaFirearm(Peoplev.Clem(2000)78Cal.App.4th   346,353-354;Peoplev.Robertson34Cal.4th156,168-169,173);# A1 #A1 (#(# 0  PoisoningWithIntenttoInjure(Peoplev._Mattison_(1971)4Cal.3d177);(#(# 0  ArsonofaMotorVehicle(Peoplev._Nichols_(1970)3Cal.3d150,163); (#(# 0  ManufacturingMethamphetamine(Peoplev.James(1998)62Cal.App.4th244,   271); (#(#   0  Kidnapping(Peoplev._Greenberger_(1997)58Cal.App.4th298,377;Peoplev.   _Pearch_(1991)229Cal.App.3d1282,1299);(#(# 0  recklessormaliciouspossessionofabomb(Peoplev.Morse(1992)2Cal.App.4th  620,646); (#(# 0  attemptedescapefromprisonbyforceorviolence(Peoplev.Lynn(1971)16  Cal.App.3d259,272;Peoplev.Snyder(1989)208Cal.App.3d1141,11431146)(#(# 0  Courthavefoundthefollowingdonotqualifyasinherentlydangerousfelonies :# A1#A1 (#(# 0  FeloniousPracticeofMedicineWithoutaLicense(Peoplev.Burroughs(1984)35  Cal.3d,824,830833); (#(# 0  FalseImprisonment(Peoplev.Henderson(1977)19Cal.3d86,92-96);"(#(# 0  PossessionofaConcealableFirearmbyaConvictedFelon(Peoplev._Satchell_ $  (1971)6Cal.3d28,35-41); (#(# 0  PossessionofaSawed-OffShotgun(id.atpp.41-43);($$(#(# 0  EscapeFromPrisonWithoutForceorViolence(Peoplev.Lopez(1971)6Cal.3d45, *&& 51-52);,(((#(# 0  GrandTheft(Peoplev.Phillips(1966)64Cal.2d574,580-583;Peoplev.Morales  (1975)49Cal.App.3d134,142143); (#(# 0  ConspiracytoPossessMethedrine(Peoplev.Williams(1965)63Cal.2d452,458);(#(# 0  Extortion(Peoplev.Smith(1998)62Cal.App.4th1233,1236-1238); (#(# 0  FurnishingPCP(Peoplev.Taylor(1992)6Cal.App.4th1084,1099); (#(# 0  ChildEndangermentorAbuse(Peoplev.Lee(1991)234Cal.App.3d1214,1229).# A1# (#(# 0  DrivingWithaWillfulorWantonDisregardfortheSafetyofPersonsorPropertyWhileFleeingFromaPursuingPoliceOfficer(Peoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4th  1129.) #X#A1 (#(#  G3   # A1# G32?x3  0    Ifafirearmorotherassaultiveconductisinvolved,theIrelandmergershould  apply.G3f ݌ (#(# Ќ  #/ #0  InPeoplev.Ireland(1969)70Cal.2d522ԀtheSupremeCourt#!#heldassaultwitha  firearmcannotserveasafelonymurderpredicate.Thishasbecomeknownasthemergerrule. (#(# 8  0`   0 ` ` Themergerruleispremisedupontheconcernthatitwouldsubvertthelegislativeintentforacourttoapplythefelony-murderruleautomaticallytoelevateallfeloniousassaultsresultingindeathtoseconddegreemurderevenwherethefelondoesnotactwithmalice....[_I]f_Ԁthefelony-murderrulewereappliedtofeloniousassaults,allsuchassaultsendingindeathwouldconstitutemurder,effectivelyeliminatingtherequirementofmalice--aresultclearlycontrarytolegislative -)) intent.[Citation.](Peoplev.Robertson,supra,34Cal.4thatp.  170,internalquotationmarksomitted.)  8  0`   0 ` `   Toallowsuchuseofthefelonymurderrulewouldeffectivelyprecludethejuryfromconsideringtheissueofmaliceaforethoughtinallcaseswhereinhomicidehasbeencommittedasaresultofafeloniousassaultacategorywhichincludesthegreatmajorityofallhomicides.Thiskindofbootstrappingfindssupportneitherinlogicnorinlaw.(Peoplev.Ireland,supra,70Cal.2datp.539.)  b UW($3xPGIJKLMNOb I;   I;F(0  2$3  0` (#(#  TheCollateralandIndependentPurposeTest. Logically,anycrime  involvinganassaultwithadeadlyweaponshouldbesubjecttothemergerrule,regardlesswhetherthevictimisinacarorahouseinsteadofstandingnearby.Notso.InPeoplev.RobertsontheSupremeCourtappliedthe   collateralandindependentpurposetest (seePeoplev._Mattison_,supra,  4X4=XCal.3d#XX4=*#Ԁ177,185)andheldthedefendantcouldbetriedforfelonymurder   whenhenegligentlydischargedafirearm.Thattestisusedtodetermineif"thepurposeofthepredicatefelonywasindependentoforcollateraltoan $  intenttocauseinjurythatwouldresultindeath."(Robertson,supra,34 &"" X4=XCal.4th#XX4=w,#Ԁat170,emphasisadded.)In_Mattison_,thistesthadsomelogic. ($$ _Mattison_,whoworkedinaprisoninfirmary,soldmethylalcoholtoanalcoholicprisoner.Methylalcoholispoisonous.Theprisoner,aftergetting ,(( drunk,died.TheSupremeCourtheldtheIrelandmergerruledidnotapply  because_Mattison_Ԁactedwithacollateralandindependentpurpose:furnishanintoxicatingdrug.(Seealso,Peoplev.Taylor(1970)11Cal.App.3d57  [victimdiedofheroinoverdose.SeconddegreefelonymurderconvictionnotsubjecttoIrelandmergerrulebecauseunderlyingfelonycommittedwith   collateralfeloniouspurpose].)Thisisalogicalresult.Whenthecrimeisfurnishingheroinoralcohol,thedefendantisusuallynotacting withtheintendtocommitinjurywhichwouldcausedeath.(_Mattison_,supra,atp.  185.)#,#I;F(q(݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  0` (#(# InRobertsonthecourtappliedthistestwhentheunderlyingfelonywas  negligentdischargeofafirearm.#\1#Themergerruledidnotbarafelonymurder  prosecutioninRobertson#2#becausehetoldpolicehehadfiredintotheair  intendingtoscarepeopleaway.(Robertson,supra,atpp162,171.)  However,iftheevidenceshowsthedefendant'sintentwastoshootatthevictim,eithertoinjureorkillthevictim,themergerrulewillapplytobarapplicationoftheseconddegreefelonymurderrule.#33#Thus,intherecentcase " ofPeoplev._Randle_,supra,35Cal.4th987,theCourtheldtheIrelandmerger $  ruleprecludeduseoffelonymurderinstructionsbecause"defendantadmittedshootingatRobinson."(Id.,atp.1005.)($$` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# Thereachofthecollateralandindependentpurposetestisstillinflux.InPeoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300,wheredefendantwasconvictedof ,(( felonymurderbasedonshootingataninhabiteddwelling,thecourtrefusedtoapplythetest.ItstateditwouldnotextendtheIrelanddoctrine beyond  thecontextofassault.(Id.,atp.312.)Since [_m]ost_Ԁhomicidesdonotresult  fromviolationsofsection246,afelonymurderprosecutionwillnotpreventthejuryfromconsideringissuesinvolvingmaliceinthegreatmajorityofallhomicides.However,inRobertsonand_Randle_thecourtdidextendthe   Irelanddoctrinebeyondthecrimeofassaultwithadeadlyweapon.In   Robertson,thecourtalsonotedthat adefendantwhodischargesafirearmat  aninhabiteddwellinghouse...hasapurposeindependentfromthecommissionofaresultinghomicideifthedefendantclaimsheorsheshottointimidate,ratherthantoinjureorkilltheoccupants.(Robertson,supra,34  Cal.4thatp.171,citingJustice_Werdeger_sconcurrentopinioninHansen,  supra,atp.318.)WhetherthecourtwouldnowholdapplytheIrelandtest  inacaseinvolvingshootingataninhabiteddwellinghouseisanopenquestion. ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# InPeoplev._Tabios_(1998)67Cal.App.4th1,11,thecourtofappeal " appliedHansenandsaidthemergerdoctrinedidnotapplywhenthe $  underlyingoffensewasshootingatanoccupiedvehicle.TheanalysisinRobertsonand_Randle_providesabasistochallengethisholding._Tabios_ ($$ engagesinvirtuallynoanalysis,beinglargelycontenttociteHansen.There *&& isalsoabasisfordistinguishingbetweenshootingataninhabiteddwelling ,(( house(Hansen)andshootingatanoccupiedmotorvehicle.Thecrimeof  shootingataninhabiteddwellinghousedoesnotrequirethatanyonebepresent.(Hansen,supra,9Cal.4thatp.310.)However,someonemust  necessarilybepresentwhenthecrimeisshootingatanoccupiedvehicle.   Thus,thecrimeofshootingatanoccupiedvehicleisvirtuallyidenticaltoanassaultwithadeadlyweapon.Themergerdoctrineshouldthereforeapply. ` (#` (# b UW($33Ub G3   G3XB2$3  0    AttemptedMurderCannotBeBasedUponaFelonyMurderTheory .Since   attemptedmurdercanonlybebasedonexpressmaliceaforethought,namely,aspecificintenttokill,itcannotbebasedonafelonymurdertheory.Itwouldbeerrorforthetrialcourttogiveafelonymurderinstructioninanattemptedmurdercase.(Peoplev._Guerra_(1985)40Cal.3d377;Peoplev._Wein_(1977)69Cal.App.3d79,  92["[_T]he_Ԁfelony-murderrulehasnoapplicationtoachargeofattemptedmurder.Anattemptedmurderrequirestheintenttotakeahumanlife-anelementwhichcannotbesuppliedbythe...felony-murderrule."])G3XBB݌ (#(# Ќ  #6# G3   A1 G3'F2$3  0    IfitWasErrortoInstructonFelonyMurder,PrejudiceWillOrdinarilyBe   PresentG3'FF݌ (#(# Ќ  0   ` Intheusualcase,thejurywillbeinstructedonmalicemurderandfelonymurder.Ifthefelonymurderinstructionwaserroneous,eitherbecausetheunderlyingfelonywasnotinherentlydangerous,orbecauseofthemergerdoctrine,reversalisrequiredunlesstherecordaffirmativelyshowsthejuryreliedsolelyonthelegallycorrecttheoryofmalicemurder.(Peoplev._Guiton_(1993)4Cal.4th1116, + '' 11281129.)- ))(#(#  G3   G3I2$3  0    IfThereIsanIssueInvolvingtheMergerDoctrine,theJuryMustBeInstructed  onHowtoApplytheCollateralPurposeRule G3II݌(#(# Ќ  0   ` Assumingthemergerdoctrineisanissueinthecase,itsresolutioninvolvesafactualinquiry.InRobertsonthecourtsaidthemergerdoctrinedidnot preclude   applicationofthefelonymurderruleunderthefactsofthepresentcase.   (Robertson,supra,atp.173,emphasisadded.)In_Randle_thecourtemphasized, The    factthatdefendantadmittedshootingatRobinsondistinguishesRobertsonand   supportsapplicationofthemergerrulehere.(_Randle_,supra,atp.1005.)Sincethe   applicationofthecollateralandindependentpurposetesthingesonthedefendantsintent,thedefendanthasaconstitutionalrighttohavethejurymakethatfactualdetermination.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasruledthatwheneveradefendantsexposuretogreaterpunishmentorliabilitydependsonfactualfindingsconcerningthecircumstancesoftheoffense,thosefindingsmustbemadebyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,484485.)  Thequestionwhetheradefendanthadan independentandcollateralpurposewhenhecommittedanunderlyingfelony goespreciselytowhathappenedinthecommissionoftheoffense.(Id.,atp.496.)#(#(#  I;   I;Q0  2$3  0` (#(#  Neither_CALJIC_Ԁnor_CALCRIM_Ԁhasaproposedinstructionconcerningthe %!! applicationoftheindependentandcollateralpurposetest.Itisthereforeunlikelyanysuchinstructionwillbegiveninafelonymurderprosecution.I;QDQ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   I;   I; S0  2$3  0` (#(#  ThisissuewasarguedbyBradOConnellin_Randle_,buttheSupremeCourt +'' didnotaddressitsinceitfoundthefelonymurderruledidnotapply.I; S5S݌-))` (#` (# Ќ   I;   I;T0  2$3  0` (#(#  Sincetheissueinvolvesanessentialelementoffelonymurder,thestandard  forprejudiceshouldbethestringentChapmanstandard.(SeePeoplev.  _Sakarias_(2000)22Cal.4th596,624625.)Ifthereisanyfactualdisputein  thecasewhetherthedefendantintendedtoshootthevictimormerelytofrighten,thefailuretoinstructonthecollateralandindependentpurposetestshouldbefoundprejudicial.I;TT݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   G3   G3`W2$3  0    IfMaliceisPresumedinaSecondDegreeMurderProsecutionitIsan   _Irrebutable_ԀPresumptionWhichisProhibitedbytheConstitution. G3`WW݌ (#(# Ќ  0   ` Inoldercases,theSupremeCourthasstatedmaliceispresumed,imputed,_superadded_,_infered_Ԁorascribeda_a_Ԁfelonymurdercase.# A1RF#(Peoplev.Olsen,supra,80  Cal.atpp.126127;Q1 Peoplev.Brown(1958)49Cal.2d577,591# Q1jZ#fn.3;Q1 Peoplev.  Washington(1965)62Cal.2d777,780# Q1Z#;Peoplev._Antick_Ԁ(1975)15Cal.3d79,87;  Q1 Peoplev._Nichols_(1970)3Cal.3d150,# Q1[#Ԁ164;Peoplev.Q1 _Satchell_,supra,6Cal.3datpp.  34,43andfn.11.# Q1p\#)A1 ԀAsrecentlyas1994theSupremeCourtstated, Thefelony  murderruleimputestherequisitemaliceforamurderconviction.(Hansen,supra,  atp.308.) Thefelonymurderdoctrine...operatestoposittheexistenceofthatcrucialmentalstate.(Ibid.)Ifthisisthecase,theseconddegreefelonymurderrule # iscontrarytothedueprocessclauseofthefederalconstitution. (#(#  I;   I;8_0  2$3  0` (#(#  Firstdegreefelonymurderisstatutory.Insection189theLegislature '## establishedaformoffirstdegreemurderwhichdoesnotincludeanyelementofmaliceaforethought.TheLegislaturehasthepowertodothis,sinceithastheauthoritytodefinecrimes.Seconddegreefelonymurder,however,isa -)) judicialcreation.Thereisnostatuteprohibitingseconddegreefelonymurder.Therefore,itcomesundersection187,whichrequiresproofofmalice.TheSupremeCourtrecognizedthisbasicprincipleinPeoplev.Hansen,supra,9  Cal.4thatp.308.I;8_c_݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   I;   I;ob0  2$3  0` (#(#  Asamatterofdueprocess,acourtmaynotinstructajurythatitmust   conclusivelypresumeanelementoftheoffensehasbeenproven.(_Yates_Ԁv.   _Evatt_(1991)500U.S.391;_Carella_Ԁv.California(1989)491U.S.263.)Since   thestandardseconddegreefelonymurderinstructionsgiveninCalifornia(see_CALCRIM_Ԁ540Ato540C)donotrequirethejurytofindmalice,itiseffectivelytoldmaliceisconclusivelyprovenunderthattheory,whichviolatesthefederalconstitution.I;obb݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   I;   I;e0  2$3  0` (#(#  Reversalisrequiredwhenajuryisinstructedonamandatorypresumption  unless_th_Ԁrecordestablishesbeyondareasonabledoubtthat thejuryactuallyresteditsverdictonevidenceestablishingthepresumedfactbeyondareasonabledoubt,independentlyofthepresumption.(_Yates_Ԁv._Evatt_,supra,   atp.404.)Inaseconddegreefelonymurdercaseitwillbevirtuallyimpossibletomeetthisstandard.I;ef݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   G3   G3h2$3  0    IftheSecondDegreeFelonyMurderTheoryEliminatesMaliceasanElement, &"" itViolates# A1$]#SeparationofPowers,DueProcess,andSection6asaJudicial '## CreationofaNonStatutoryCrimeA1 .G3hi݌($$(#(# Ќ  0   ` InRobertson,ratherthantalkingaboutimputingorpresumingmalice,the *&& SupremeCourtsaid, Thefelonymurderruleeliminatestheneedforproofofmalice ,(( inconnectionwithachargeofmurder.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4thatp.165.)   [_M]alice_Ԁhasbeeneliminatedasanelement.(Ibid.)Ifthisisthecase,thesecond  degreefelonymurderruleisstillunconstitutional. (#(#  I;   I;m0  2$3  0` (#(#  # A1Oj#UnderarticleIII,section3oftheCaliforniaConstitution, thepowertodefine   crimesandfixpenaltiesisvestedexclusivelyinthelegislativebranch.(Q1 Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)# Q1un#Q1 Ԁ(1996)13Cal.4th497,516# Q1n#A1 .)# A18o#Q1 Section6   reinforcesthatconstitutionalcommand,# Q1~o#Ԁproviding [_n]o_Ԁactoromission...is   criminalorpunishable,exceptasauthorizedbythisCode.A1 I;m