California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Morris is that under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2), a nonkiller defendant must aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not just the underlying felony, under the amended felony-murder rule where the defendant acted with intent to kill.

Appeal from order summarily denying petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 in Superior Court, Orange County.

Defendant Appellant was Richard Curtis Morris, Jr. — one of two men who committed robbery and rape of victims at a condominium, during which the male victim was shot and killed.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to deny resentencing relief under Senate Bill 1437.

The suit sounded in criminal law petition for resentencing relief under the amended felony-murder rule. [No cross-claims identified.]

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Morris and an accomplice attacked Stockwell and his girlfriend S.F. at their condominium in 1987, handcuffed Stockwell, took both victims upstairs where they raped S.F., and one of them shot and killed Stockwell. DNA evidence later connected Morris to the rape. In 2013, Morris was convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances for rape, robbery, and murder for financial gain, based on jury instructions that established he acted with intent to kill and aided in the underlying felonies.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court summarily denied Morris's section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, ruling that the special circumstances jury instructions established Morris acted with intent to kill and was therefore statutorily ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding Morris was precluded from relief because he acted with intent to kill while engaged in the underlying felonies with the killer.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether section 189, subdivision (e)(2) requires a nonkiller with intent to kill to aid the actual killer in the lethal act itself, or whether aiding in the underlying felony is sufficient.

The Appellate Court held that section 189, subdivision (e)(2) requires proof the defendant aided or abetted the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just the underlying felony, based on the plain language of the statute and the Legislature's intent to narrow felony-murder liability according to individual culpability.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant was the actual killer, when the defendant aided in the underlying felony without intent to kill but was a major participant with reckless indifference to human life under subdivision (e)(3), or when the factual findings do not establish the defendant acted with intent to kill.

The case leaves open whether Morris can make a prima facie showing for relief on remand considering other arguments, whether the financial-gain special circumstance finding establishes direct aiding and abetting liability, and how this interpretation affects related special circumstance provisions that have not been amended.