Filed 6/19/14 P. v. Guzman CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
CARLOS GUZMAN,
Defendant and Appellant. B245452
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA378549)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael D. Carter, Judge. Affirmed in pa rt, reversed in part and remanded with
directions. Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Da ne R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant A ttorney General, Stev en D. Matthews and Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorneys Ge neral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________2 Carlos Guzman (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degr ee murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with a jury finding the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street ga ng (Pen. Code, § 186. 22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). 1 Appellant admitted he had a prior conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, which is a serious felony and a strike within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§§ 667, 1170.12, 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) The trial court sentenced appellant to stat e prison for a doubled term of 25 years to life, or 50 years to life.
CONTENTIONS In this appeal, appellant asserts his admi ssions to aiding and abetting murder were
inadmissible in evidence because he was not given a reasonably contemporaneous
Miranda advisement prior to a renewed police interrogation. ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602] ( Miranda ).) He makes two contentions of instructional error, complaining the trial court had a duty to charge on unanimity and was required to give more complete instructi ons on the aiding and abetting/natural and probable consequences theo ry of liability. He contends there was prosecutorial misconduct as the prosecutor argued during his closing comments aiders and abettors are “equally responsible” with the direct perpet rator for the commission of an offense.
He contends the errors fo und in this record cumula tively require a reversal. We agree with appellant that the in structions concerni ng the aiding and abetting/natural and probable consequences doctrine were erroneous. As this court cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt wh ether some jurors relied on the erroneous jury instructions in returning a verdict, we will order the ju dgment reversed in part and modified to provide for a conviction of seco nd degree murder unless respondent wishes to retry appellant for first degree murder.

1 All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. ( People v.
Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)
1. The People’s case-in-chief

a. The homicide. At about 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2 010, Dolores Jose Rodriquez (Rodriguez) bicycled from his residence to a bar located at Florence and Holmes Avenues in the Firestone area of Los Angeles County. He wa nted to see the Pacquiao boxing match at
the bar. He left his residence with a cell phone and his watch and wallet. At about 8:39 p.m. that night, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Chris Mezzano (Deputy Mezzano) and David Rodriquez (Deputy Rodriguez), local gang officers, stopped appellant and Jhony Dominguez (Dominqu ez), who were on parole. Appellant and Dominguez were standing in an alley next to appellant’s 1999 Mazda MVP minivan, California license plate No. 5B OX597. The alley ran behind appellant’s Firestone area residence, 71114 1⁄2 East 76th Street, in the County of Los Angeles. Deputy Mezzano searched the mi nivan and observed a metal ba seball bat laying in its hatchback area. Appellant was dressed in plaid shorts and a baggy gray T-shirt. Several hours later, in the early morning hours of the next day, at 12:05 a.m. on November 14, 2010, a woman named “Sandr a” telephoned 9-1-1. She reported two “guys” were “hitting [a Hispanic man] . . . with a bat in the head” in front of the
Laundromat located at Bell Ave nue and Nadeau Street. Sa ndra said the victim was bleeding, and the assailants had driv en off northbound in a white-ish van. 2 Deputies responded to 1902 East Nadeau Street and found Ro driguez lying on the ground bleeding. Rodriguez was transpor ted to the hospital and passed away the following day. At the time of his admission to the hospital, Rodriguez’s blood alcohol level was 0.3 percent. The deputy medical examiner opined the cause of death was the
infliction of blunt force head trauma. Rodr iguez had suffered at least two blows to the

2 Sandra could not be locat ed at the time of trial.4 head and face from a blunt objec t; the injuries were consistent with the use of a baseball bat. The blows shattered Rodriguez’s skull and caused hemorrhaging at several locations
in the brain. Deputy Mezzano was one of the deputies w ho responded to the 9-1-1 call. He was told the assailants were two Hispanic male s wearing dark pants and white T-shirts. Appellant’s residence and the assault site we re approximately a mile and a half from one another inside the Florencia 13 street gang’ s territory. Appellant and Dominquez had extensive gang tattoos indicating they were part of the 64th Street clique of the Florencia 13 criminal street gang. De puty Mezzano and his partner a ttempted to locate appellant due to the similarities in the suspect and the minivan descripti ons and the use of a baseball bat. The deputies were unsuccessful. It was later discovered, shortly before 2:00 a.m. on November 14, 2010, Deputy Sheriff Victor Lemus (Deputy Lemus) res ponded to a call from the nearby Vaquero Bar at Gage and Holmes Avenues. The bar’s owner told Deputy Lemus appellant and Jonathan L. were “disturbing customers” at tempting to enter the bar. Deputy Lemus was aware the Vaquero Bar is a Florencia 13 ga ng hangout. There was a crowd outside the door of the bar. The deputy “associated” appella nt with a minivan parked at the location. At 1:48 a.m., the license plate recognition so ftware in the computer in Deputy Lemus’s patrol car automatically photographed the minivan’s license plate. Deputy Lemus searched the minivan but discovered nothing unusual and did not recall seeing any blood.
b. The investigation. On November 15, 2010, appellant was a rrested. His minivan was impounded. Rodriquez’s cell phone, as well as some appa rent blood, was discovered on and inside
the minivan. There was a skateboard inside the minivan, but the baseball bat previously observed by De puty Mezzano was missing. The deputies never recovered the
baseball bat.5 Deputy Michael Valento (Deputy Valento ), the homicide investigator, inventoried the items in Rodriquez’s personal property after his death. The deputy found no valuables in Rodriguez’s prope rty, with the exception of a five-dollar bill and a onedollar bill discovered inside Rodriguez’s pants pockets. Deputy Valento spoke to appellant’s wife, Olivia Cedillo (Cedillo). Cedillo provided appellant with a partial alibi. She acknowledged appellant always kept an
aluminum baseball bat in the hatchback area of the minivan and he was the driver of that
minivan. Initially, appellant was the only known su spect in the murde r. Deputy Valento eliminated Dominguez as a suspect as Dominguez had b een wearing an Global Positioning System (G.P.S.) ankle bracelet. Parole records disclo sed Dominguez was in the Firestone area until about 11:00 p.m. However, Dominguez was at home in Southgate at the time of the murder. Jonathan L., age 17, had been seen by Deputy Lemus with appellant at the Vaquero Bar shortly after the assault. Initiall y, Jonathan L. could not be linked to the fatal beating. However, in August 2011, th e crime laboratory notified Deputy Valento
that Jonathan L.’s DNA had been found in the blood recovered inside the minivan. Another potential suspect was Luis Q., ag e 15, whose gang moniker was “Exert.” The deputies were unable to develop any evid ence linking Luis Q. to the assault.

c. Appellant’s statement to the deputies. At 6:40 p.m. on November 15, 2010, Deputy Valento and hi s partner spoke to appellant in custody after appellant had waived his Miranda rights. ( Miranda, supra
, 384 U.S. 436.) Initially, appellant told Deputy Valento he had picked up Domi nguez in Southgate so they could watch the Pacquiao fight. After the deputies stopped him and Dominguez at 8:30 p.m., appellant’s wife became upset as appellant wa s associating with another parolee. Appellant claimed at that point, he drove Dominguez home. Appellant told Deputy Valento thereafter he ran errands for his family or was at home with his wife. Appellant denied he was aware there wa s a baseball bat inside the minivan.6 Blood and Rodriguez’s ce ll phone had been found in appellant’s minivan. Deputy Valento confronted appellant with th is incriminating evid ence, as well as the 1:48 a.m. photograph of appellant’s mi nivan parked at the Vaquero Bar. Appellant changed his story. He told th e deputy he had been with “Suspect” and “Exert” that night. After he was stopped in the alley with Dominguez, he, Dominguez and a “couple of homies” were at a party wa tching the Pacquiao fight. Appellant was drinking. After the fight, appellant drove Dominguez home. Retu rning from Southgate, appellant had two other gang members in the mi nivan with him. They saw “this dude . . . right there standing on the corner of . . . Bell and Nadeau.” Appellant whistled at a girl as he passed by. In an apparent response, a man on the corner raised his arm over his head. Appellant, needing glasses, did not know whether the ma n had made a disrespectful gesture to appellant. Appellant claimed he pulled over his minivan in order to talk to some girls. When appellant stopped his minivan, the man was crossing the street. Appellant’s passengers asked the man, “ ‘Hey, dog, where you from?’ ” Appellant told his passengers, “ ‘Hurry up, fool. Hurry up. Just bang him or whatever.’ ” Appellant believed the man was probably drunk. The ma n attempted to take a swing at the youths, but they hit him and then beat him, and “tha t was it.” Appellant claimed the man replied to their initial where-are-you-fro m inquiry, but appellant could not hear the reply as the man had mumbled. Appellant deni ed getting out of the van to assist or to back up his two companions. Appellant explained that his passengers, the assailants, were two “youngsters” he knew “fro m the neighborhood.” When asked whether the youngsters had grabbed the bat from the hatchback of the van to commit the assault, appellant replied all he recalle d was that one of the youths said he was going to grab the skateboard. Ap pellant kept telling the youngsters, “ ‘Hurry up, fool. Hurry up.’ ” He heard, “ ‘[P]ow, pow, pow’ ” as if an object was striking a
concrete floor. He looked at the source of the noise, and the youngsters were using the
baseball bat to hit the man. He observed th e skateboard was still in his minivan.7 When asked how many times the victim had been hit and if he was on the ground when he was struck, appellant did not repl y. Then appellant said, “Yeah, because I remember a car pulling up fro m the back, and I’m looking lik e, ‘What the f---? Hurry up, dog.’ ” He heard the bat hitting cement. He turned and looked, and the man was on the ground. All appellant could see was one youngster checking the man’s pockets while the other youngster hit th e man with the bat.
d. The recorded jailhouse conversati on between appellant and Dominguez. On November 29, 2010, De puty Valento put appellant in a cell with Dominquez and recorded their conversation. Appellant inquired about what Dominguez had told the police. Dominguez replied he told the depu ties appellant drove him home and he knew nothing. Appellant informed Dominguez that after they had droppe d Dominquez off, he and the youngsters were pulled over at the Vaquero Bar. He exclaimed, “[T]he “ ‘jura’ [the deputies] f---ed up as they didn’t card us, fool.” He sa id the deputies failed to take his name and simply recorded his minivan’ s license number. Ap pellant told Dominguez he had informed the police Dominguez was we aring the G.P.S. sens or on his ankle.

e. The forensic evidence. A forensic examination of appellant’s mi nivan disclosed Jonath an L.’s fingerprints
on a beer can found in the minivan’s hatchb ack. DNA from Jonathan L. was found on the back of the front passenger se at, as well as on the right rear exterior of the minivan. Appellant’s fingerprints were found on a M ountain Dew can located on the rear seat floorboard under the front passenger seat; hi s DNA was on an interior passenger door
handle of the minivan and on a water bottle found inside the minivan. The criminalists found Rodriquez’s DNA in the blood on the right rear bumper of the minivan and in the blood collected atop the seat bottom of the right front passenger seat.
f. The testimony concerning motive. Deputy Rodriguez testified as an expert on criminal street ga ngs and specifically as to Florencia 13, a criminal street gang with which he had personal experience. He testified Florencia 13 is a large, well-estab lish gang of some 2000 members. He set out
its territorial boundaries in the Firestone ar ea. Among the gang’s primary activities were8 the commission of crimes such as assaults w ith a deadly weapon an d attempted murder. He commented one aspect of gang culture is that gang members value “respect” very highly. But by “respect,” they are referring to making others afraid of them due to their proclivity to engage in violence. Gang members control their neighbor hoods by committing acts of violence, intimidating residents and instilling fear in th e community. They gain stature within the gang by “putting in work” fo r the gang, i.e., committing crim es that range from car theft to murder. They patrol their neighborhoods and mark their te rritory with graffiti as part
of their effort to mainta in control over an area. The inquiry “Where are you from?” is a dire ct challenge to others. It is usually a signal a violent confrontation will occur, and the aftermath to the challenge will be an assault. If gang members do not react violen tly to other gang members and strangers in their neighborhood, they will be perceived as weak and they will be victimized by other gangs and rivals for the territory they possess. The gang Florencia 13 is te rritorial. If someone is di srespectful to gang members inside their own territory, such conduct calls for retaliation, i.e., an immediate act of
violence. Violence is more likel y to occur in the event of disr espect that occurs in front of fellow gang members. No gang member wants to look weak. So retaliation is required. Gang members generally commit crimes w ith one another. They can trust other gang members who are attempting to prove th emselves not to spea k to the authorities
about their criminal activ ities or to “snitch[].” Deputy Rodriguez revealed appellant had admitted to him that he is a Florencia 13 gang member. His moniker is “Trusty.” Jona than L. is reputed w ithin the gang officer community to be a Florencia 13 gang member with the moniker, “L’il Trusty.” The deputy explained when gang members of diffe rent generations bond, they often take on9 names such as “Little,” “Baby,” or “Inf ant,” added to thei r mentor’s name.
These nicknames indicate their bond with the mentor. 3

2. The defense. Appellant declined to testify. In defense, he called Humberto Guizar (Guizar), a civil rights and personal injury attorney, who had qualified a number of times in court to testify as a gang expert. Guizar claimed as a juvenile, he was a “hardcore gang member” of two downtown Los Angeles gangs. At that time, he graduated to the ga ng status of a “shotcalle r.” Guizar opined it was highly unlikely someone as old as appellant, with a child and who had been to prison, was an active gang member. Guizar claimed most gang members are active with a gang between the ages of 14 and 19 years. Also, persons who go to prison drop out of the gang life because the inma tes in state prison will not to lerate such activity there. Guizar was given a hypothetical with facts that were similar to those in the instant case. He gave his opinion that appellant was not acting to benefit the gang. Guizar commented the expression “bang[ing] on some body” did not necessar ily mean hitting the person. It might also be used to indi cate “hit[ting] them up.” Guizar said that committing a criminal act with an older, inactive gang member present constituted “stupidity” or showed no consid eration as to what the older person might think of such
misconduct.
DISCUSSION
1. The Miranda contention. Appellant contends his 6:40 p.m., No vember 15, 2010, statement to Deputy
Valento is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of a contemporaneous Miranda warning and waiver. ( Miranda, supra , 384 U.S. 436.)

3 The deputy continued his te stimony testifying as relevant to establish the elements of the criminal street gang enhancement. That testimony is omitted from the statement of facts as it is not relevant to the appeal.10 a . Background Before the trial, trial counsel moved to exclude from the trial evidence the statement Deputy Valento and his partner obtained from a ppellant. The ground for the exclusion was Deputy Valento’s failure to repeat the Miranda advisements given to appellant earlier that day when the arresti ng officer initially interviewed him. Trial
counsel claimed the failure to re advise appellant and obtain a new Miranda waiver rendered the statements made during the subs equent 6:40 p.m. Deputy Valento interview
inadmissible in evidence. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on th e issue, Deputy Rodriguez testified he and his partner, Deputy Mezzano, arrested appellant in the early morning hours of November 15, 2010. They transported ap pellant in the back seat of their police vehicle to the Century Regional Detenti on Center. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on November 15, 2010, the deputies spoke to appe llant inside the deputies’ police vehicle in the detention center’s parking lot. Depu ty Rodriguez advised appellant of his Miranda rights, and appellant waived those rights. The deputies interviewed appellant for approximately 15 minutes concerning the beating. In response to the deputies’ questions, appellant insisted he did not know wh at the deputies were talking about. Deputy Valento testified that a number of hours later on the same day, at 6:40 p.m., he initiated another interview. Ap pellant was in custody at the same location, the Century Regional Detention Center. When Deputy Valento commenced the interview, he was aware appellant had waived his Miranda rights at 1:45 a.m. that morning. The time of th e initial interview and the Miranda waiver was documented in a supplemental police report. As appellant had been advised of, and had waived, his
Miranda rights within the last 24 hours, Deputy Valento simply in itiated the interview
without an additional advisement and waiver. The deputy di d not remind appellant of his rights, nor did he me ntion the previous Miranda advisement and waiver. The deputy interviewed appellant for roughly 40 minutes. This interview resulted in the party admissions the prosecution used at trial.11 At 9:00 p.m. the same day, Nove mber 15, 2010, Deputy Valento again spoke to appellant. There was a fourth in terview at approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2010. Deputy Valento intervie wed appellant a fifth time on November 22, 2010, and once again on November 29, 2010. During the final November 29, 2010, interview, Deputy Valento readvised appellant of his Miranda rights and obtained a waiver of rights. After listening to the deputies’ testimony, the trial court ruled appellant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights before speaking to Deputy Rodriguez. It also ruled the subsequent interrogation was “reasonably contemporaneous” with the prior valid advisement and wa iver, and thus, at 6:40 p.m., no additional advisement and
waiver of Miranda rights was required.
b. The relevant legal principles The prosecution bears the burden of demo nstrating the validity of a defendant’s
Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evid ence. The question this court must address is whether the allege d waiver was voluntary, know ing, and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances surr ounding the interrogation. ( People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 425 ( Williams ).) “In considering a claim that a statement or confession is
inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of a defe ndant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra , 384 U.S. 436, the scope of our review is well established. ‘We must accept the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if they are subs tantially supported. [Cita tions.] However, we must independently determine from the undisputed fa cts, and those properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained.’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1032-1033.) We apply federal standards in reviewing
defendant’s claim that the cha llenged statements were elicited from him in violation of
Miranda . ( Id . at pp. 1032-1033.) “[R]eadvisement is unnecessary where th e subsequent interr ogation is ‘reasonably contemporaneous’ with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. [Citations.] The courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including the am ount of time that has passed12 since the waiver, any change in the identity of the interr ogator or the location of the interview, any official reminder of the prio r advisement, the suspect’s sophistication or past experience with law enforcement, and a ny indicia that he subjectively understands and waives his rights.’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 170; accord, People v. Pearson (2012) 53 Cal.4t h 306, 316-317; Williams, supra , 49 Cal.4th at pp. 434-435.)

c . The analysis Here, the defense raised no issue as to whether appellant made a valid
Miranda waiver during his initial statement to th e deputies at 1:00 a.m. or 1:45 a.m. on November 15, 2010. The trial court ruled that the subsequent 6:40 p.m. November 15, 2010 interview by another de puty, Deputy Valento, did not require an explicit readvisement of Miranda rights and a waiver of right s prior to the interview. Only 15 to 16 hours had elap sed between the initial 1:45 a.m. interview and that which occurred at 6:40 p.m. Two different sheriff’s deputies were involved in the initial and subsequent interviews. However, appellant was at the same detention center and in the custody of the same agency during the interviews. There is a strong inference of criminal sophistication and knowledge of the legal system as appellant had previously undergone legal proceedings that resulted in his impris onment and he was on parole at the time of the fatal beating. He was 24 years old. 4 During the 6:40 p.m. in terview, he exhibited no reluctance to speak to Deputy Valento concerning the beating. In the circumstances, the trial court properly concluded the passage of time between the two interviews was not so great as to create an inference appellant no longer understood or rememb ered the rights he had expressly waived earlier. Only some 18 hours had elapsed between th e initial and the 6:40 p.m. interview.

4 According to the data in the probation report, appellant was age 24 on the date of the offense.13 ( People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 555 [ack nowledging in dicta the California Supreme Court had approved the resumption of interrogation without a readvisement even a day to two after the initial waiver]; see, e.g., Williams, supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 435 [an experienced defendant was interviewed w ithout advisement by same officer 40 hours after initial advisement]; Mickle, supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 171 [an interrogation conducted
36 hours after the first interview was reasonably contemporaneous].)
2. The failure to charge the jury with a sua sponte instruction on unanimity.
In Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 [153 L. Ed.2d 556, 122 S.Ct. 2428] ( Ring )
and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L. Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348] ( Apprendi ), the court applied the principle that federal due process requires any facts triggering a higher maximum penalty for a crime to be found by the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. In California, the duty to give a unanim ity instruction revolv es upon whether the
trial evidence indicates the defendant committ ed more than “ ‘one discrete criminal event.’ ” ( People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1135.) In Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624 [115 L.Ed.2 d 555, 111 S.Ct. 2491] ( Schad ), the United States Supreme Court upheld Arizona law, whic h like California law, treats different theories of murder, such as premeditation and felony murder, as alternative theories upon which a person can be convicted of murder, not as separate o ffenses of murder, and thus requires no jury unanimity. Shad held that the legislative treatm ent of the alternative means of committing murder as different th eories rather than different offenses does not exceed the limits of due process. In our case, at trial, the prosecution argu ed appellant was guilty of murder in the first degree, and the jurors could reach such a verdict by applying three different theories of criminal liability: (1) that appellant got out of the minivan a nd was one of the two direct perpetrators of the fatal beating with the bat; (2) appellant and his cohorts
committed murder in the course of a second degree robbery, conduct which amounts to first degree felony murder; and (3) appellant wa s an aider and abettor to a target offense of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury or with a deadly14 weapon, and the natural and probable conseq uence of the target offense was the nontarget, charged offense of murder, the degr ee of which was first degree murder. Appellant contends that following Apprendi and Ring , we must look through the
labels attached to the conduct and to insist on unanimity as to the preliminary facts of the murder, i.e., the actus reas of the various theories the prosecution was utilizing to establish criminal liability. In other words, th e jury not only had to agree appellant committed first degree murder, it was also re quired to agree on the specific role the defendant played during the discrete crim inal event. Appellant argues a sua sponte unanimity instruction was required as to th e specific acts appellant had committed, and
the trial court’s failure to deliv er such a unanimity instruction requires a reversal of the judgment. 5
The contention lacks merit. The trial court charged the jury wi th CALCRIM No. 54 8, as follows. “The defendant has been prosecuted for murder under three theories: (1) malice aforethought, (2) felony murde r, and (3) natural a nd probabl[e] conseque nces. [¶] Each theory of murder has different requirements, and I will instruct you on both. [¶] You may not find the defendant guilty of murder unless all of you agree that the People have proved that the defendant commi tted murder under at least one of these theories. You do not all need to agree on the same theory.” The jury was charged as to reasonable doubt (CALCRIM No. 22 0), and told that if it found a natural and probable consequence of the target offense was murder, it
“must then determine whether the murder wa s of the first or second degree” (CALCRIM No. 520). It was instructed: “Your verdict on each count and any special findings must

5 We surmise appellant is suggesting the trial court was required to give a jury instruction such as that se t forth in CALCRIM No. 3500: “The People have presented evidence of more than one act to prove that the defenda nt committed this offense. You must not find the defendant guilty unless you a ll agree that the Peop le have proved that the defendant committed at l east one of these acts and you a ll agree on which act (he/she) committed.”15 be unanimous. This means th at, to return a verdict, all of you must agree to it,” and “You will be given a verdict form. As soon as all jurors have agreed on a verdict, the foreperson must date and sign the appropriate verdict form and notify the bailiff. . . .” The jury was given a verdict form which said the following: “We, the jury . . . find the defendant, [appellant] guilty of murder in the ___ degree.” The verdict form specified the foreperson was to fill in the blank in the sent ence above with the degree of the jury’s finding, i.e., the form specified, “write ‘1st’ or ‘2 nd’ ” in the provided space. In returning its verdict, the jury foreperson wr ote, “1st,” in the appropriate blank in above
direction and returned the ve rdict form to the bailiff. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and authorities, we conclude the jury was not required to decide wh ich of the three proposed theo ries (direct perpetrator vs. first-degree felony murder vs. aiding and ab etting/natural and prob able consequences doctrine) governed the killing. Each juror need on ly have found appe llant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the single, statutory offense of first or second degree murder. ( Schad, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 641.) Whatever th e basis for this long-standing rule (see Schad at p. 642), it follows that the same jury need not have unanimously agreed on the precise factual details of how a killing unde r one or the other theory occurred in order
to convict a defendant of first or second degree murder. ( People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 249-250.)
This issue is well settled as the Califor nia Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected appellant’s contention. (See, e.g., People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 413 ( Moore ); People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 697; People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 214; People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 54; People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903, 918-919; see also, People v. Forbes (1985) 175 Cal.A pp.3d 807, 816-817 [jurors need not unanimously agree by which statute the defendant attains his status as a principal in the crime]; People v. Perez (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 214, 2 22 [“Both the United States Supreme Court in Schad and the California Supreme C ourt on several occasions have held jurors need not un animously agree on the theo ry supporting liability [for murder].”].)16 Citing the decisions in People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 626, and People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 617, the court in Moore , supra , 51 Cal.4th at page 413, also rejected any claim that the decisions in Apprendi and Ring have changed the unanimity requirements for alternative theories of a substantive offense such as first degree murder. The recent opinion in People v. Quiroz (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 65 provides a detailed discussion of the reasons for rejec ting the contention in the precise factual context presented here. This court cannot improve on the analysis provided in Quiroz

. 3. The jury instructions on aiding and abetting and the natural and the probable consequences doctrine were erroneous. Appellant contends the trial court prejudicia lly erred by failing to instruct the jury that in order to find him guilty of first degree murder on an aiding and abetting/natural and probable consequences theo ry, it had to find that first degree murder (as opposed to simply murder) was a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.

a. Background. The jury was charged with the legal principles concerning aiding and abetting in CALCRIM No. 400, “Aiding a nd Abetting: General Pr inciples,” and CALCRIM No. 401, “Aiding and Ab etting: Intended Crimes.” The tr ial court charged the jury with CALCRIM No. 403, concerning the natural a nd probable consequences doctrine, as it concerns a non-target char ged offense, as follows. “Before you decide whether the defendant is guilty of Murde r, you must decide whether he is guilty of Assau lt with a Deadly Weapon or Fo rce Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury. “To prove that the defendant is guilty of Murder, the People must prove that: “1. The defendant is guilty of Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Product Great Bodily Injury; “2. During the commission of Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury a coparticipant in that Assau lt with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Gr eat Bodily Injury committed the crim e of Murder;17 “AND “3. Under all of the circumstances, a re asonable person in the defendant’s position
would have known that the commission of the Murder was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury

. “A coparticipant in a crime is the perpetrator or anyone who aided and abetted the perpetrator. It does not include a victim or innocent bystander.
“ A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothi ng unusual intervenes. In deci ding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circ umstances established by the evidence. If the Murder was committed for a reason indepe ndent of the common plan to commit the Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Gr eat Bodily Inju ry, then the
commission of Murder was not a natural and probable consequence of Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury.
“ To decide whether crime of Murder was committed, please refer to the separate instructions that I will give you on that crime .” (Italics added.)
The trial court instructed that to find “d efendant” guilty of mu rder, the People had to prove “defendant” committed an act that caused the death of another person, that “defendant” acted with malice aforethough t, and that he k illed without lawful justification. (C ALCRIM No. 520.)
The trial court further instructed that if the jury found “defendant” guilty of
murder as an aider and abettor it had to dete rmine whether the murder was of the first or second degree. It then instru cted that to find “defendant” guilty of first degree murder, the People had to prove “def endant” acted willfully, deliber ately and with premeditation,
and that all other murders were of th e second degree. (CALCRIM No. 521.)18 b. The analysis. “ ‘A person who knowingly ai ds and abets criminal conduct is guilty of not only the intended crime [target offe nse] but also of any other crime the perpetrator actually commits [nontarget offense] that is a natura l and probable consequence of the intended crime. The latter question is no t whether the aider and abettor actually foresaw the additional crime, but whethe r, judged objectively, it was reasonably foreseeable. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Liability under the natural and probable c onsequences doctrine ‘is measured by whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have or should have known that the charged offens e was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act aided and abetted.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 920;

see People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 254 .) “A reasonably foreseeable consequence is a factual issue to be resolv ed by the jury who evaluates all the factual circumstances of the individual case. ( People v. Medina, supra , 46 Cal.4th at p. 920.)” ( People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868, 874.) The correctness of a jury instruction is determined from the entire charge of the court. ( People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192.) (1) Forfeiture. Respondent argues there is a forfeiture as tr ial counsel failed to object in the trial
court to the trial court’s use of CALCRIM No . 403. However, this rule does not apply where a trial court, as here, gives an instruc tion that is an incorrect statement of law. ( People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002 , 1011-1012.) We follow the recent decision in People v. Chiu (June 2, 2014, S202724) ___ Cal.4th ___ [2014 Lexis 3760] ( Chiu ). Pursuant to that decision, using the inst ructions CALCRIM No. 403 together with CALCRIM Nos. 520 and 521, to permit the jury to convict a defendant as an aider abettor of first degree murder constitutes error. As the instructions give n to the jury were erroneous insofar as they defi ned that theory of criminal liability, we decline to find a forfeiture. ( Hudson, at p. 1012.)19 (2) The merits. Recently, the California Supreme Court decided Chiu . The issue in Chiu is the
same issue raised here: “Doe s a conviction for first degree mu rder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine require that premeditated murder have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crimes or only that murder have been such a consequence?”
In Chiu , the California Supreme Court engage d in a discussion of the existing authorities pertinent to that th eory of vicarious liability. It concluded “[f]irst degree murder, like second degree murder, is the unl awful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but has the additional elem ents of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation which trigger a heightened penalty.” ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 12].) The mental state for fi rst degree murder is “uniquely subjective and personal”; it requires more than an intent to kill – the killer mu st act deliberately, carefully weighing the consider ations for and against a choice to kill before he or she completes the acts that cause death.” ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 12].), citations omitted.) “[W]hether a di rect perpetrator commits a nontarget offense
of murder with or w ithout premeditation and deliberation has no effect on the resultant harm.” ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 12].) The victim is killed regardless of the aider and abettor’s premedit ative state. The cour t concluded that as a matter of policy, the direct perpetrato r’s premeditative state is too attenuated to impose vicarious liability on the aider and ab ettor for first degree murder under the natural and probable cons equences doctrine. ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at pp. __ [slip opn. at pp. 12-13].) Accordingly, the court held that where the prosecution uses a target offense and the natural and probable conseq uences doctrine to allege a nontarget offense of murder, the only offense the aider and abettor commits is second degree murder. ( Chiu, supra
, __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 13].) The punishment for second degree murder is
commensurate with the aider and abettor’s cu lpability for aiding and abetting the target crime. ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [s lip opn. at p. 13].)20 The court further observed that the aide r and abettor’s liability for murder under the natural and probable cons equences doctrine operates independently of the felonymurder rule. ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 13].) If the prosecutor wishes to obtain a conviction of first degr ee premeditated murder, he must proceed by using a theory of direct aiding and abetting in which a first degree murder is the target offense. ( Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at pp. 13-14].)

c. Prejudice “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court conclu des beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” ( People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201;
see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 [ 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 119 S.Ct. 1827] .) Further, where there are alternate theories up on which the jury can find guilt, a reviewing court must conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on a legally valid theory. ( Chun, at p. 1203; see also Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opn. at p. 14].)
Our review of the record discloses no clue as to which theory or theories the jury may have used to reach a verdict of first de gree murder. As the prosecution proceeded
on two valid theories for convi ction, but one erroneous theo ry, and this court cannot determine whether some or all of the ju rors relied on the natural and probable consequences doctrine to reach a verdict, we must reverse appellant’s conviction. We adopt the same re medy as that used in Chiu, supra , __ Cal.4th at p. __ [slip opinion at page 16]. The instructional error he re affected only the de gree of the murder. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction of first degree murder, allowing the People to accept a reduction of appellant’s conviction to second degree murder. However, if the People wish, they may retry appe llant for an offense of first degree murder. If the People chose to retry the case, they may seek a first degree murder conviction on theories of first degree felony murder or on a theory of direct aiding and abetting.21 4. Prosecutorial Misconduct. Appellant contends that during closing co mments, the prosecutor told the jury that each participant in the crime, whether a direct perpetrator or aider and abettor, is “equally guilty” of the offense committed. Appellant asserts the co mments misstate the law and constitute reversible prosecutorial misconduct.

a . Background In his closing comments, in discussing ap pellant’s guilt as an aider and abettor, the prosecutor claimed appellant knew an assault was likely if he stopped his minivan after the male pedestrian had “disre spected their territory .” The prosecutor then argued the following. “What is the expectation? I submit to you the expectation is this guy, if he says the wrong thing, is going to be assaulted. [¶] And what happens during an assault? Remember what [the deputy me dical examiner] said when sh e showed you that portion of [the victim’s] skull . . . . She says, ‘We ca ll it an eggshell, the skull [is] an eggshell because if you get a little crack here it can ki nd of splinter like an e gg does when you hit the side . . . .’ [¶] . . . [¶] . . . A co-participant, [Jonathan L.], committed the crime of murder. During the crime that the defendant was anticipating, go bang on that guy, go assault him, one of the people . . . there killed him. [Appellant] is responsible. He is a principle under a theory of aiding and abetti ng to that crime. And principles are all equally guilty of the crime. The lookout, the getaway driver , the shooter, all the people
involved in that cr ime are equally guilty .” (Complained-of comments italicized.) Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor urged appellant “would have known that the
commission of the murder was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of
the assault with a dead ly weapon . . . .” The gang member protecting his turf, who had the bat in his minivan, would know when “hit [ting] this guy up” in a group beating could
kill someone. Then the prosecutor said the question the jury must address is whether a reasonably prudent person would foresee a murder. The prosecutor argued it was22 reasonably foreseeable in the c ontext of this dangerous Floren cia 13 gang assault that the gang youths with appellant would k ill “that guy” during the assault.
b. The analysis (1) Forfeiture. Trial counsel failed to object to the above comments. It is settled that to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a de fendant must seek a jury admonition or demonstrate on appeal that the admonish ment would have been futile. (E.g., People v.
Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 829; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 726.) In this case, a jury admonitio n would have cured any harm flowing fro m the prosecutor’s comment implying an aider and abettor is always equally guilty with a direct perpetrator. Accordingly, the claim is forfeited. (2) The merits

. “A prosecutor commits misconduct when hi s or her conduct either infects the trial
with such unfairness as to re nder the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, or involves deceptive or reprehensible methods em ployed to persuade the trier of fact.” ( People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 711.) A defendant asserting prosecutorial
misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion. ( People v. Gonzales and Soliz (2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 305.) Aiders and abettors are principles, but th ey are not always equally guilty with the direct perpetrator. (See People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App. 4th 586, 622-626; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App. 4th 1148, 1164-1165; People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 513-519.) As a result of the errors in the ju ry instructions, this
court has ordered a reduction in the offe nse to second degree murder, or in the alternative, a retrial of appellant’s liability for first degree murder. The order for a reduction in the judgment, or a retrial, has rendered the contention moot. However, if the People chose to retry the case, before the prosecutor makes the comment complained of here, he may wish to be certain that the “eq ually guilty” principle of law actually applies
in this case.23 5. Cumulative error Appellant argues the cumulative errors in this record compel a reversal. “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844.) As this court is reversing the judgment in part as explained above, there is also no
need to reach this contention.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed in part, revers ed in part and remanded with directions. The judgment of first degree murder is reve rsed unless respondent accepts a reduction of the conviction to second degree murder. If, after the filing of the remittitur in the trial court, respondent does not bring defendant to retrial so lely on the premeditation and
deliberation element of murder within the time set forth in section 1382, subdivision (a)(2) – 60 days unless waived by the defendant – the trial court shall proceed as if the
remittitur constituted a modificat ion of the judgment to refl ect a conviction of second degree murder and shall resentence appellant accordingly.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

KITCHING, J.