Post-SB 1437 Aider-and-Abettor Liability: Direct Intent Requirement and Harmless Error in People v. Hin

Introduction

People v. Hin (S141519, San Joaquin Co. Super. Ct. No. SF090168B) is the California Supreme Court’s April 24, 2025 decision addressing multiple counts of homicide and gang enhancements. Mao Hin was convicted of the 2003 murder of Alfonso Martinez and five counts of attempted murder in separate incidents. The jury also found gang-related special circumstances and multiple firearm and gang enhancements. On automatic appeal, the Court re-examined a series of issues arising from the enactment of Senate Bill 1437 (2018) and Senate Bill 775 (2021), modern statutory standards for felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences doctrines, the admissibility of rap-lyric evidence under Evidence Code § 352, and the post-SB 333 amendments to gang-enhancement law. Hin’s petition for rehearing was denied following limited revisions to the majority opinion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed Hin’s first degree murder conviction as a direct aider and abettor acting with intent to kill, finding the felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences instructional errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the jury’s special-circumstance determinations.
All six counts of attempted premeditated murder (Counts 3, 5–9) and the single gang-participation count were reversed because the jury was improperly instructed on now-abolished natural-and-probable-consequences liability and Senate Bill 775 eliminated that theory for attempted murder.
Two of the Bedlow Drive attempted-murder counts (Counts 5 and 8) were also reversed on grounds of insufficient evidence under the “kill-zone” theory; the Court declined to decide double-jeopardy implications.
The gang-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2(a)(22)) and all gang enhancements (§ 186.22(b)(1)) were vacated under the post-SB 333 standard requiring at least two predicate offenses that “commonly benefited” the gang “in a manner more than reputational.”
The admission of the rap song “Bang, Bang” was held to be an abuse of discretion under Evidence Code § 352, though harmless as to guilt and penalty. Other evidentiary, instructional, and constitutional challenges were rejected.

Analysis

1. Senate Bill 1437 and Natural-and-Probable-Consequences Harmless Error

Senate Bill 1437 (2018) abolished the natural-and-probable-consequences theory for murder and limited felony-murder liability to “major participants” acting with “reckless indifference.” The Court held that first degree murder can still stand as a direct aiding-and-abetting conviction where the jury, despite erroneous instructions, necessarily found the defendant acted with the intent to kill. Because the jury’s true findings on the gang-murder special circumstance required finding Hin’s intent to kill Martinez, the natural-and-probable-consequences error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, attempted murder convictions dependent solely on the invalidated doctrine could not be saved and were reversed.

2. Senate Bill 775 and Attempted-Murder Doctrine

Senate Bill 775 (2021) extended SB 1437’s abolition of natural-and-probable-consequences theory to attempted murder. The Court reversed all attempted-murder counts because the jury had been allowed to convict on that abrogated theory. The only counts permitted for retrial are those on which sufficient evidence independently demonstrated direct intent to kill.

3. Gang Enhancements and SB 333’s “Common Benefit” Requirement

Assembly Bill 333 (2021) revised § 186.22 to require that at least two predicate offenses “commonly benefit” the gang “in a manner more than reputational.” Applying the stricter standard retroactively, the Court concluded the prosecution’s evidence of three predicates (a drug sale, a burglary, and a rival-gang shooting) did not show non-reputational benefit to the Tiny Rascals Gang. All gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance were vacated.

4. Firearms and Gang Evidence: Limitations on Expert Testimony

1) Firearms: A weapons-examiner’s equivocal witness that “a second firearm could have been used” was neither unduly speculative nor prejudicial given Hin’s admissions and ballistics chain.

2) Rap Lyrics (§ 352): The Court held it was an abuse of discretion to admit the song “Bang, Bang” without any evidence Hin authored or embraced its lyrics, because its minimal probative value was cumulatively established by other gang-membership proof and outweighed by undue prejudice—including racialized stereotypes. Admission was harmless, but the ruling foreshadows stricter scrutiny of rap-lyric evidence under newly enacted Evidence Code § 352.2.

5. sufficiency of “Kill-Zone” Theory

Following People v. Canizales (2019), the Court declined to extend the kill-zone doctrine to two attempted-murder counts where the victims were shot inside adjacent residences and the circumstances did not demonstrate an intended zone of fatal harm.

6. Other Evidentiary and Instructional Issues

Section 352.2 Rap-Lyrics Abuses: Recognized under current Evidence Code § 352, independently of § 352.2’s pending retroactivity debate.
Unanimity and Burden of Proof: Rejected claims that penalty-phase jury findings must be unanimous or proven beyond a reasonable doubt for aggravating factors and ultimate death verdict.
Juror Misconduct and New Trial: A post-verdict hearing showed no credible misconduct; motions for mistrial and new trial were properly denied.
Victim Impact and Judicial Emotion: The trial judge’s discreet emotional reaction and interpreter’s distress did not require reversal.

7. Impact on Future Cases

People v. Hin provides a roadmap for applying SB 1437 and SB 775 to direct appeals, clarifies harmless-error review when multiple murder theories are given, and confirms SB 333’s strict common-benefit test for gang enhancements. It also signals heightened judicial scrutiny of gang-related rap lyrics under § 352 and anticipated application of Evidence Code § 352.2. Counsel presenting gang or lyric evidence must anchor opinions and exhibits in demonstrable facts about authorship, participation, and non-reputational benefit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Natural-and-Probable-Consequences Doctrine: Once allowed a defendant to be convicted of unintended crimes if they were “reasonably foreseeable,” SB 1437 abolished it for murder.
Felony Murder after SB 1437: Only actual killers, intent-to-kill accomplices, or major participants acting with reckless indifference can face first degree felony murder.
Harmless Error Review: Even if a jury hears an invalid theory, we ask whether any reasonable juror, given the facts, would have convicted under a valid theory.
Gang Enhancements under SB 333: Prosecutors must prove at least two prior offenses that non-reputationally benefited the gang; simply boosting reputation is no longer enough.
Kill-Zone Theory: To prove intent to kill multiple victims, the attack must show a clear plan to create a zone of deadly harm around the intended target.

Conclusion

People v. Hin stands as a pivotal application of California’s post-SB 1437 and SB 775 reforms to statutory murder and attempted-murder doctrine, and post-SB 333 reforms to gang enhancements. It affirms that a direct intent-to-kill theory survives harmless-error scrutiny despite rogue instructions, while natural-and-probable-consequences liability for attempted murder and improperly supported gang-enhancement findings cannot endure. Its construal of Evidence Code § 352 warns against unmoored rap-lyric testimony. Trial counsel must carefully tailor theories of guilt, penalty evidence, and jury instructions to the current statutory and constitutional landscape, lest convictions and enhancements be undone on appeal.