Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150625_0005010.CA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 16:53:58
Document Index: 617213714

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 187', '§ 212', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 667', '§ 667', '§ 189']

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.MAXAMILLION LEE MCDONALD, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF143850C. Thomas S. Clark, Judge.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION DETJEN, Acting P.J. INTRODUCTION
On August 19, 2012, Christopher Patterson snatched a gold chain from around the neck of 71-year-old Guadalupe Ramos.[1] In the process, he either knocked or threw her to the pavement of a grocery store parking lot. Patterson fled on foot; Maxamillion Lee McDonald (defendant), the driver of a car parked several spaces away from the Ramos vehicle, pulled out of the lot and picked Patterson up a block or two away. With defendant in the car was Lawrence Slaughter. The trio - all members of the East Side Crips criminal street gang - then drove to a business that purchased gold. Meanwhile, Guadalupe developed an irregular heartbeat. She was pronounced dead about an hour after the robbery. The day before, defendant, accompanied by Slaughter, had grabbed a gold chain from the neck of a woman in a different store’s parking lot.
Defendant now stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder during the commission of a robbery (Pen. Code, [2] §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 190.2, subd. (a)(17); count 1), robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c); counts 2 & 4), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3).[3] As to counts 1 and 2, the jury further found defendant committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang.[4] (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Following a bifurcated court trial, defendant was found to have been previously convicted of a serious or violent felony (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)) and to have served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and, the People not having sought the death penalty, defendant was sentenced to an unstayed term of life in prison without the Page 20
possibility of parole plus 12 years. He was ordered to pay restitution and various fees, fines, and assessments.
FACTS [*]
Defendant raises a number of claims of purported instructional error.[31] We address each in turn.
A. First Degree Felony Murder
Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct, as to first degree felony murder, that the jury had to find he aided and abetted the Page 21
robbery before or at the time of the act(s) causing death.[32] Under the instructions given, he says, the jury could have believed defendant was guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery in progress by acting as a getaway driver before Patterson had reached a place of temporary safety, and, hence, was automatically guilty of felony murder even though the acts that caused Guadalupe’s death had already been committed before he aided and abetted. We agree with defendant that his murder conviction must be reversed.[33]
The prosecution presented evidence from which the jury reasonably could have determined defendant was a coplanner of the robbery and participated in casing the Foods Co for a victim, then acted as the getaway driver for the actual robber - in other words, that he aided and abetted the robbery from the outset. If jurors believed defendant’s testimony, however, he had no idea ahead of time that Patterson was going to commit any kind of crime at the Foods Co, and only went to Patterson’s aid (although suspecting Patterson had committed some kind of crime) after he saw Patterson running away from the store.[34]
Without objection or modification, the trial court gave CALCRIM No. 1603 in conjunction with instructions on robbery, as charged in counts 2 and 4, to wit: “To be guilty of robbery as an aider and abettor, the defendant must have formed the intent to aid and abet the commission of the robbery before or while a perpetrator carried away the property to a place of temporary safety. A perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety with the property if he or she has successfully escaped from the scene, is no longer being pursued, and has unchallenged possession of the property.”
For reasons not apparent from the jury instruction conference, the trial court omitted a bracketed paragraph from the instruction that would have told jurors: “[The defendant must have (intended to commit[, ]/ [or] aid and abet[, ]/ [or] been a member of a conspiracy to commit) the (felony/felonies) Page 23
of ___ <insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189> before or at the time that (he/she) caused the death.]”
With respect to the robbery-murder special circumstance, and without objection, the trial court gave CALCRIM No. 703, which ...