Eduardo Linares v. J. Tim Ochoa

MEMORANDUM

1. The jury heard evidence that Li-nares drove Ricardo to the site of the drug deal for $400, with the knowledge that Ricardo was carrying a gun and planned on purchasing $28,000 worth of cocaine. The jury also heard that Linares had participated in drug deals before and understood that his history as an informant could heighten the dangers involved. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the California Court of Appeal reasonably found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Linares of second degree implied malice murder.

2. Under California law, a trial court must “on its own initiative [ ] identify and describe for the jury any target offense allegedly aided and abetted by the defendant” when “the prosecution relies on the ‘natural and probable consequences’ doctrine to hold a defendant liable as an aider and abettor.” People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013, 1025 (1996). Linares argues that his due process rights were violated by the state trial court’s failure to give such an instruction. However, the…