Hart

People v. Hart

Bad Law
176 Cal. App. 4th 662·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1318·97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 2009C057652California3,593 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nicholson, J.

Defendants Cedric Hart and Tyrone Rayford entered a liquor store intending to rob the husband and wife working there. Hart exhibited a gun and demanded money. When Hart saw a gun in an open drawer below the cash register, he fired on the husband, hitting him in the abdomen.

Convicted of attempted robbery, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm, defendants appeal. They make contentions of error relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and sentencing.

In the published portion of this opinion, we focus on the trial court’s instructions with respect to the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Under the instructions as given, the jury may have convicted Rayford of attempted premeditated murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The instructions on natural and probable consequences, however, referred to “attempted murder” without noting that, in order to convict Rayford of attempted premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the jury would have to find that attempted premeditated murder was a natural and probable consequence of the attempted robbery. We therefore…

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.