In re Moore, Youthfulness & Reckless Indifference

In Solano County in 2014, Vacaville police responded to a report of a shooting at the Canyon Creek apartments.  Police found 18-year-old Demetrius Ward in the front seat of his truck, unconscious and with a gunshot wound to his neck. 

A Ziplock bag with marijuana was found inside the truck and a .45-caliber shell casing was found a few feet away.  Mr. Ward was taken to the hospital, but died at the hospital.

The 911 call had been made by Kai Hughes, also 18.  She told police that Mr. Ward, her former boyfriend, had been shot by Alijondro Jones, age 20, during a botched marijuana robbery.

Ward told Hughes he had some high quality marijuana earlier in the night and was going to sell it.  As described later by Hughes, several folks, including Jones, agreed together to go to Ward’s location to rob Ward.

Jones was later arrested and convicted of first degree felony murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), but was found not to have used the firearm (Penal Code § 12022.53(b)) and was sentenced to 25 years to life, along with a consecutive three-year term for a separate case for which he was out on felony probation at the time of the murder. 

In 2018, Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437) was enacted to “amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 830, 842.

SB 1437 accomplished this, by among other things, amending Penal Code § 189 such that murder liability is not imposed on persons convicted of felony murder unless they were the actual killer, or aider and abettor with the intent to kill, or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

In December 2020, Jones filed a petition for resentencing under SB 1437.  In March 2021, after an evidentiary hearing under Penal Code 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6), the trial court denied Jones’ petition, finding that Jones was a major participant in the robbery and acted with reckless indifference to human life.  The trial court considered the major participant under People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 522, at 611 and reckless indifference to human life in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 788, at 803.

At the resentencing hearing, defense counsel told the court that Jones “was barely 20 years old at the time of the crime,” “immature” and “still developing.”  Counsel asked the judge to consider Jones’ youth, referring the court to Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 and Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48 for the proposition that “recklessness is a hallmark of youth, but it does not alone demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life.”

In providing a detailed explanation of its denial of the resentencing motion, however, the judge did not mention Jones’ age or maturity level.

Jones appealed the denial to the First Appellate District Court, citing to a recent decision wherein the youthfulness of defendant must be considered in the reckless indifference analysis.  People v. Cooper (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 393.

The First Appellate District agreed, but for another reason, citing to In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 434, which held that a defendant’s youth was “a relevant factor” in deciding whether a defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless disregard to human life (Id., at 454).  In Moore, a sixteen-year-old defendant was determined not to have acted with reckless indifference, in part due to his youth at the time of the offenses, lack of participation in the robbery, and unawareness of the shooter’s propensity for violence.

For this reason, and without suggesting that Jones’ age and maturity will necessarily affect the outcome of the trial court’s determination, the First Appellate District remanded the case to the trial court for it to consider the relevant factors consistent with In re Moore.

For more information about the new felony murder rule, an SB 1437 petition and the Clark / Banks analysis of acting as a major participant in the underlying felony with reckless indifference to human life, please click on the following articles: