Opinion ID: 2623595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Instruction on Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine; Refusal of Coffman's Requested Limiting Instruction

Text: The trial court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 3.02, on the natural and probable consequences doctrine of aider and abettor liability. [39] Using CALJIC No. 3.01, the court defined aiding and abetting and, pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.81.17, informed the jury that, in order to return a true finding on any special circumstance allegation, the jury had to find that the defendant had the specific intent to kill or to aid another in the killing of a human being. Coffman voiced no objection to these instructions as given. On appeal, however, she contends the instruction on natural and probable consequences was prejudicially defective in failing to inform the jury that natural and probable means reasonably foreseeable, thereby permitting the jury to convict her of murder without sufficient evidence of the required mental state. Coffman contends she suffered further prejudice by the court's refusal to instruct the jury that it must not use evidence of the Kentucky and Orange County killings in arriving at any verdict and that such evidence was admitted solely on the question of whether she intended to kill or to encourage or facilitate Marlow's killing the victim. Finally, Coffman contends the natural and probable consequences doctrine is unconstitutional in capital cases because it predicates criminal liability on negligence, in violation of due process. We find no merit in her contentions. Elaborating on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, in People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 261, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013, and People v. Croy (1985) 41 Cal.3d 1, 12, footnote 5, 221 Cal.Rptr. 592, 710 P.2d 392, we observed that an aider and abettor is guilty not only of the offense he intended to facilitate or encourage, but also of any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by the person he aids and abets. As the Court of Appeal in People v. Brigham (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1039, 265 Cal.Rptr. 486 noted, although variations in phrasing are found in decisions addressing the doctrine â probable and natural, natural and reasonable, and reasonably foreseeable â the ultimate factual question is one of foreseeability. ( Id. at pp. 1050, 1054, 265 Cal.Rptr. 486; see People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 316-322, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274.) A natural and probable consequence is a foreseeable consequence ( People v. Fabris (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 685, 698, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 667, disapproved on another ground in People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 90, fn. 5, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 738, 18 P.3d 660); the concepts are equivalent in both legal and common usage. Coffman cites no authority for the contention that the term natural and probable consequences is one having a meaning peculiar to the legal context and that, therefore, the term must be expressly defined for the jury. (See People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 967, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 70 P.3d 277.) Indeed, in People v. Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 535, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 323, the Court of Appeal found sufficient, without inclusion of the phrase reasonably foreseeable, the instruction Coffman challenges here. We agree with the Nguyen court that CALJIC No. 3.02 correctly instructs the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. To the extent Coffman contends that imposition of liability for murder on an aider and abettor under this doctrine violates due process by substituting a presumption for, or otherwise excusing, proof of the required mental state, she is mistaken. Notably, the jury here was also instructed with CALJIC No. 3.01, advising that an aider and abettor must act with the intent of committing, encouraging or facilitating the commission of the target crime, as well as CALJIC No. 8.81.17, which required, for a true finding on the special circumstance allegations, that defendants had the specific intent to kill the victim. These concepts fully informed the jury of applicable principles of vicarious liability in this context. Nor did the trial court err in refusing Coffman's requested instruction that it was not to use evidence of the Kentucky and Orange County killings, which had been admitted solely on the issue whether Coffman entertained the intent to kill or to encourage or facilitate Marlow in killing the victim, in reaching its verdict in this case. The requested instruction was duplicative of CALJIC Nos. 2.09, instructing the jury about evidence admitted for a limited purpose, and 2.50, advising it to use such evidence not to find criminal propensity but rather to determine whether the necessary element of intent was proven. ( People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) When Coffman introduced evidence of the Kentucky and Orange County killings, moreover, the jury was specifically instructed as to its limited purpose. We presume it followed these instructions. ( People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 436, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) Finally, we reject the premise of Coffman's argument that the application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine in capital cases unconstitutionally predicates murder liability on mere negligence. Liability as an aider and abettor requires knowledge that the perpetrator intends to commit a criminal act together with the intent to encourage or facilitate such act; in a case in which an offense that the perpetrator actually commits is different from the originally intended crime, the natural and probable consequences doctrine limits liability to those offenses that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the act originally aided and abetted. (See People v. Nguyen, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 531, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 323.) Moreover, by finding true the special circumstance allegations against Coffman, the jury in this case necessarily found she possessed the intent to kill. Having found no error in these instructions as given in this case, we perforce reject Coffman's claim that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to them.