Opinion ID: 2630185
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Significance of the split verdict

Text: As noted, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation, but found not true the personal gun use allegation. Defendant contends this split verdict shows that one or more jurors must have rejected his guilt as the actual shooter and instead found him guilty as an aider and abettor. Because there was insufficient evidence for the aider and abettor theory, he argues, his conviction must be reversed. In the previous part, we rejected defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict him as an aider and abettor. But even were we to assume the evidence was insufficient, the split verdict does not show that the jury relied on an aider and abettor theory. Where the jury considers both a factually sufficient and a factually insufficient ground for conviction, and it cannot be determined on which ground the jury relied, we affirm the conviction unless there is an affirmative indication that the jury relied on the invalid ground. ( People v. Marks, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 233.) We review the entire record in determining whether there is such an affirmative indication. ( People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365, 847 P.2d 45].) In People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81], we considered what implications could be drawn from a split verdict in determining whether an issue had been necessarily decided for the purposes of collateral estoppel. ( Id. at p. 917.) In Santamaria, the defendant was charged with murder, a robbery-murder special circumstance, and the allegation that he had personally used a knife in the commission of the crime. The main witness was a companion who had been charged with and convicted of being an accessory to the murder. ( Id. at pp. 908-909.) The jury convicted the defendant of murder and robbery and found true the special circumstance, but found not true the personal knife use allegation. ( Id. at p. 909.) The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, finding prejudicial error in an 11-day continuance the trial court had granted during deliberations. The issue on retrial was whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented the prosecutor from proceeding again on the theory that the defendant was the direct perpetrator, since the first jury had found the personal knife use allegation to be untrue. ( Ibid. ) We held collateral estoppel did not preclude retrial on a direct perpetrator theory because the not true verdict on the personal knife use allegation was of far less significance than the defendant had contended. ( People v. Santamaria, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 919.) We explained: It shows only that there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that defendant specifically used a knife. It does not show the reverse, that the jury specifically found defendant was an aider and abettor . . . . The jury may merely have believed, and most likely did believe, that defendant was guilty of murder as either a personal knife user or an aider and abettor but it may have been uncertain exactly which role defendant played. That, too, would fully explain, and necessitate, the split verdict. ( Ibid. ) Although defendant's claim does not involve collateral estoppel, our observations in Santamaria apply to his contention that the jury's failure to sustain the personal gun use allegation is an affirmative indication it relied on an aider and abettor theory to convict him of murder. As in Santamaria, the jury in defendant's case likely believed defendant was guilty of murder either as the actual shooter or as an aider and abettor, but may have been uncertain as to the exact role he played. As previously discussed, the evidence reasonably supports the inference that both Mercurio and defendant planned and carried out the robbery and murder. Mercurio placed all the blame on defendant, but from the other evidence presented at trial the jury could reasonably have inferred Mercurio was a coperpetrator in the crimes. The jury's uncertainty as to the exact roles each played could explain its failure to sustain the gun use allegation. The jury's finding on the gun use allegation does not necessarily demonstrate it based its murder verdict on an aider and abettor theory. ( People v. Marks, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 233.)