Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Man Was ‘Actual Killer’ of Victim Who Died From Stress
Third District Says Defendant Who Robbed 82-Year-Old Man After Knocking Him Unconscious, Resulting in Death From Heart Condition, Is Not Entitled to Resentencing Under Legislation Largely Abrogating Felony-Murder Rule
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Third District Court of Appeal on Friday affirmed a trial court’s determination that the defendant was the “actual killer,” ineligible for resentencing under legislation that largely abolishes the felony-murder rule and applies retroactively, rejecting the contention that there was no “actual killer” because the victim died from an irregular heartbeat, a preexisting condition triggered by being knocked unconscious during a robbery.
Justice Elana Duarte authored the opinion which affirms a judgment by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Acquisto.
She recited that in 1993, defendant Albert Garcia placed an 82-year-old man in a headlock and struck hum, rendering him unconscious, and went off with his wallet. The man died about an hour later from cardiac arrhythmia, which an autopsy showed to have been caused by the stress of being robbed and assaulted.
Statutory Change
Penal Code §189(e) was amended by 2018 legislation, Senate Bill 1437, to say that a person who commits many offenses listed above—which includes robbery—” is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The person personally committed the homicidal act was the actual killer.”
SB 1437 added Penal Code §1170.95—now §1172.6—which provided for the resentencing of a person convicted under the felony murder rule if that person would not be guilty of murder under the law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2019.
“Defendant was convicted on a murder theory that remains valid after Senate Bill No. 1437”—namely, that the defendant was the “actual killer,” Duarte wrote.
Duarte’s Reasoning
She explained:
“In our view, the Legislature’s purpose in revising the law as it relates to felony-murder liability was to ensure proportionate punishment for accomplices in the felony-murder context, and that the term ‘actual killer’ is meant to distinguish the person who actually caused the victim’s death, including in circumstances where two or more persons participated in the felony.
“We decline to adopt the interpretation of section 189, subdivision (e) urged by defendant, as it is not supported by the clear, unambiguous language of the statute or the intent expressed by the Legislature in adopting Senate Bill No. 1437….Had the Legislature, as defendant suggests, intended section 189, subdivision (e) to mean that there is no ‘actual killer’ for purposes of felony-murder liability where death resulted from a preexisting medical condition aggravated by the stress of the underlying felony, it could and would have said so in clear and certain terms. This is particularly true given that long-standing case law permits felony-murder liability even when a preexisting medical condition is a substantial factor in causing the death of the victim, as long as it is not the only substantial factor.”
The case is People v. Garcia, C093430.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company