People v. Serna CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2025B337235California923 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moor, J.

DISCUSSION

At the time of Serna’s plea, a defendant could be convicted under the theory that the defendant aided and abetted a crime of which attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence. (See People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161 [discussing natural and probable consequences liability generally]; see also § 31.) It was not necessary to prove that the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 defendant intended that the attempted murder be committed or even that the defendant subjectively foresaw that attempted murder could result. (See Chiu, at pp. 161–162.) In 2019, the Legislature, through Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), amended section 188 to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it applies to murder and to require, with certain exceptions under the felony-murder rule, that a defendant act with malice to be convicted of murder. (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) In 2021, through Senate Bill No. 775 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775), the Legislature clarified that the amendments made by Senate Bill 1437 were also intended to apply to attempted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.