Opinion ID: 1170931
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Instructions on Accomplice Liability.

Text: (21) On rehearing, defendant and amicus curiae argue that the trial court's failure to instruct on intent with regard to accomplice liability for the liquor store assaults requires reversal of those convictions. [6] We disagree. The standard CALJIC aiding and abetting instructions found deficient in People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 [199 Cal. Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318], were given here. Former CALJIC Nos. 3.00 and 3.01 were erroneous because they did not advise the jury that conviction as an aider and abettor required not only that the defendant have knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator of the offense, but also that the defendant share that purpose or intend to commit, encourage, or facilitate the commission of the crime. ( People v. Croy (1985) 41 Cal.3d 1, 11-12 [221 Cal. Rptr. 592, 710 P.2d 392]; People v. Caldwell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 210, 223-224 [203 Cal. Rptr. 433, 681 P.2d 274]; People v. Beeman, supra, 35 Cal.3d 547, 560.) We have recently held that prejudice from Beeman error is assessed under the Chapman harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review. ( Chapman v. California (1966) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065]; People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 60-64 [246 Cal. Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1].) Under these facts the Beeman error was clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It is undisputed that defendant was armed with the handgun upon initiating the robbery of the liquor store. After defendant personally removed the money from the cash register his accomplice stated, Come on. We got the money. Let's get out. Defendant replied,  No. We're not going to leave any witnesses.  (Italics added.) Defendant marched the victims back into the rear of the store at gunpoint. He handed the gun to his partner, then twice struck Romero across the head with two full bottles of wine. When Romero pretended to be dead, defendant removed Romero's wallet from his back pocket, felt his back and said,  We don't have to worry about this guy any more.  (Italics added.) Neither of the surviving victims directly observed defendant regain possession of the gun or fire the enusing volley of shots. However, Romero testified that defendant's companion, who had a very boyish look to his face, remained passive throughout the incident and at no time exhibited any threatening or violent behavior. Romero observed defendant walk over to Zamora and Vasquez and order the boys to their knees. As the victims pleaded for their lives three shots were fired off in rapid succession; Vasquez and Zamora were each shot through the front of the head. The execution-style shooting clearly evinces an intent to kill. The nature and location of the wounds, together with Romero's testimony, strongly supports an inference that defendant momentarily handed the gun to his companion so he could hit Romero over the head with the wine bottles, then took his gun back, stood in front of his victims and fired the shots. Defendant used the same handgun several weeks later to rob and twice shoot victim Rose Olveda in the head; the jury concluded from such evidence that he had assaulted her with intent to commit murder. Subsequent to the commission of these offenses defendant remained in possession of the handgun, admitted ownership of it when he sold it to undercover Officer MacIvor, and told the officer it had done a murder. The jury found that defendant had personally used the gun in connection with the murder of Vasquez, the robbery of Olveda, and the assaults with intent to commit murder upon Romero, Zamora and Olveda. In short, the undisputed evidence overwhelmingly establishes that defendant personally shot all of his victims and intended to murder each of them, succeeding in one case. The verdicts and personal gun-use enhancements found true under each count establish that the jury so found; no contrary evidence whatsoever was presented.