Introduction

People v. Brandon Alexander Favor is a pivotal case decided by the Supreme Court of California on July 16, 2012. The defendant, Brandon Alexander Favor, was convicted of aiding and abetting two counts of robbery and two counts of attempted murder. The central issue in this case revolved around the application of Penal Code SECTION 664(a), which enhances the punishment for attempted murder if it is deemed willful, deliberate, and premeditated.

This case scrutinized whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury to consider whether the premeditation element of the attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery. The decision addressed conflicting appellate rulings and clarified the standards for juror instructions in cases involving the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the convictions of Brandon Alexander Favor. The jury had found Favor guilty of robbery as an aider and abettor and attempted murder under the theory that the attempted murders were natural and probable consequences of the robbery. Additionally, the jury determined that these attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated, triggering the enhanced penalties under SECTION 664(a).

The Court resolved a conflict between previous appellate decisions by siding with PEOPLE v. CUMMINS and PEOPLE v. LEE, rejecting the reasoning in PEOPLE v. HART. The Court held that it was sufficient for the jury to find that attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery without requiring a separate finding that premeditation was also a natural and probable consequence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engaged with several key precedents:

• PEOPLE v. CUMMINS (2005): This case upheld that for the premeditation element under SECTION 664(a), the jury need only determine that the attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery, not that premeditation itself was foreseeably linked.
• PEOPLE v. HART (2009): Contrarily, Hart held that jurors must find that the perpetrator's premeditated attempt to murder was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery, a requirement the majority of Favor overruled.
• PEOPLE v. LEE (2003): This case clarified that the premeditation enhancement does not require the aider and abettor to personally exhibit premeditation, only that the attempted murder itself was premeditated.

By adhering to Cummins and Lee, the court reinforced a streamlined approach where the natural and probable consequences doctrine does not necessitate linking premeditation as a separate element of foreseeability.

Legal Reasoning

The court reasoned that Penal Code SECTION 664(a) requires only that the attempted murder itself was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery, not that the premeditation aspect was. This interpretation aligns with the notion that liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine is primarily based on the foreseeability of the occurrence of an attempted murder during the commission of the target offense (robbery), regardless of the perpetrator’s specific mental state regarding premeditation.

The majority opinion emphasized that attempting to split the natural and probable consequences into separate elements of the offense (i.e., the act of attempted murder and its premeditation) complicates the causal link required for liability. Instead, they argued for a more unified approach where the occurrence of attempted murder during the robbery suffices for the application of SECTION 664(a), provided it is a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts the prosecution of aider and abettor cases, particularly in violent crimes like robbery where severe nontarget offenses such as attempted murder may occur. By affirming that juries do not need to separately assess the foreseeability of premeditation, the ruling streamlines the sentencing process and potentially broadens the scope for enhanced penalties under SECTION 664(a).

Future cases will likely reference People v. Favor to support the appellant-friendly position that only the act (attempted murder) needs to meet the natural and probable consequences standard without dissecting the perpetrator's mental state further. This may lead to more consistent sentencing in terms of enhanced penalties where severe consequences naturally follow a target crime, without overcomplicating the judicial process with additional requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

This legal doctrine holds that individuals who aid or encourage the commission of a crime can be held liable not only for the intended crime (target offense) but also for any other crimes (nontarget offenses) that naturally and probably result from the initial wrongdoing. Essentially, if a secondary crime logically follows from the primary one, the aider or abettor can be held accountable for both.

Aider and Abettor

An aider and abettor is a person who assists, encourages, or facilitates the commission of a crime by another individual. Under California law, as per Penal Code sections 30 and 31, such individuals must have knowledge of the criminal intent and actively participate in the execution of the crime to be held liable.

SECTION 664(a) of the Penal Code

This section addresses the punishment for attempted murder in California. It stipulates that attempted murder carries a determinate sentence of five, seven, or nine years. However, if the attempted murder is found to be willful, deliberate, and premeditated, it garners a more severe punishment: life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

Premeditation

Premeditation refers to the deliberate and conscious planning or forethought to commit a crime. In the context of attempted murder, if premeditation is established, it significantly escalates the severity of the offense.

Conclusion

People v. Favor serves as a critical clarification in California's approach to sentencing aiders and abettors in the context of robbery-related crimes that escalate to attempted murder. By affirming that the jury need only find the attempted murder itself to be a natural and probable consequence of the robbery, without disaggregating premeditation as a separate element of foreseeability, the court has streamlined the application of enhanced penalties under SECTION 664(a).

This decision reinforces the natural and probable consequences doctrine's role in ensuring that individuals who facilitate serious crimes are held adequately accountable for all foreseeable outcomes of their actions. It underscores the balance between maintaining clear legal standards and ensuring that the prosecution can effectively seek justice in cases where secondary crimes naturally follow from the primary offense.