People v. Hale CA4/2

BACKGROUND

In 2003, the Riverside County District Attorney charged Hale with attempted

murder (§§ 664, 187; count 1), assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b);

count 2), and discharge of a firearm from a moving vehicle (§ 12034, subd. (c); count 3),

as well as a number of enhancements. Hale proceeded to trial. At trial, the jury was

instructed that to find him guilty of assault with a firearm, they had to find that someone

committed an attempted murder, that Hale aided and abetted that attempted murder, and

that the assault was the natural and probable consequence of the attempted murder. They

were not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for

convicting Hale of the attempted murder count. The jury found Hale guilty as charged.

In 2022 Hale petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court

held a hearing on the petition in September of that year. At the hearing, the People and

the court noted that the instruction given on the natural and probable consequences

doctrine as applied to the assault charge was odd, as it reversed the normal flow of

liability. That is, the instruction told the jury they could…