Hoang

People v. Thai Huu Hoang

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 264·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1873·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15572·51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 509·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10955
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 2006G036515California4,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

Defendant Thai Huu Hoang was convicted of attempted premeditated murder, based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury found that by aiding and abetting an assault with a deadly weapon by a gang member, defendant was also liable for attempted premeditated murder—the natural and probable consequence of the assault. We affirm.

Defendant argues the trial court should not have instructed the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine because there was insufficient evidence he aided and abetted the requisite target offense. Given the evidence and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, the jury was properly instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The question of first impression before us is under what circumstances, if any, the trial court may instruct the jury regarding a target offense not requested by the prosecution, but for which there is substantial evidence. In People v. Huynh (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 662, 678 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ], Division Five of the Second Appellate District left open the question “whether the trial court may raise the issue of additional target offenses not…

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.