People v. Truong CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the denial order must be reversed because the trial court engaged in improper factfinding, and the record of conviction does not establish he was the person who actually killed Truong. Neither contention has merit. Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which limited the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder in two ways. First, the bill abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine in murder cases. (See § 188, subd. (a)(3).) Since appellant was not convicted of murder under that doctrine, that change has no bearing in this case. SB 1437 also amended the felony murder rule, which was the legal basis for appellant’s murder conviction. Traditionally, the felony murder rule applied whenever the victim was killed during the course of a felony, regardless of the defendant’s intent or actions. (People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275-276.) However, SB 1437 amended the rule so that it applies only if 1) the defendant actually killed the victim, 2) he aided and abetted the killer in committing first degree murder, or 3) he was a major participant in the underlying felony and…