California Supreme Court orders review of 1987 murder conviction

(CN) – The California Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower court’s decision denying reconsideration of the sentence of a person convicted of first-degree murder in 2013, ruling that under a new law, the defendant must have aided or abetted the killer himself in the killing to be liable.

“We construe the statutory language to mean exactly what it says: The phrase ‘aided . . . or aided the actual murderer in the commission of first degree murder’ requires proof that the defendant aided or abetted the actual murderer in the deadly act itself and not just the underlying crime,” Judge Joshua Groban wrote for the majority.

The decision stems from a retrial appeal filed by Richard Morris Jr., who was convicted of the first-degree murder of James Stockwell, the owner of a topless bar, in 2013.

On January 1, 1987, Morris and another man attacked Stockwell and his girlfriend, SF, as they returned to his apartment late at night. During the robbery-turned-murder, Stockwell and his girlfriend were ordered to lie down and the couple offered the men money and jewelry. The two were then taken upstairs, where the men raped SF, tied her up and told her they were taking Stockwell to his club.

After the perpetrators left in Stockwell’s car, SF realized that shots had been fired. She went to a neighbor’s house to help and when she returned, she found Stockwell dead. He was pronounced dead from a single gunshot wound to the head.

DNA samples were obtained by SF after the attack but were not analyzed until 2009 and 2012 because DNA was not yet available when the crime took place. DNA from SF’s samples was found to match Morris’ DNA.

Morris was indicted on one count of first-degree murder in December 2011. In 2013, a jury convicted Morris of Stockwell’s first-degree murder more than 25 years after the crime, finding aggravating circumstances of rape, robbery and murder for financial gain. Morris was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus five years, and his conviction was upheld on appeal in 2015.

In 2022, Morris filed a petition for retrial in Orange County Superior Court, arguing that he could not be convicted of first-degree murder under the new changes in the law because he did not assist the actual killer in the deadly act that killed Stockwell.

Previously, state law defined first-degree murder as “all murders committed in the commission or attempted commission of certain crimes, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem and kidnapping.”

However, Senate Bill 1437signed into law in September 2018, narrowed accomplice liability for felony murder to read that non-murderers can only be held liable for murder if they, “with the intent to kill, aid, abet, advise, order, induce, urge, solicit or assist the first-degree murderer” or assisted the first-degree murderer in committing the murder. in the underlying crime and acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

The law also allowed those with murder convictions to petition to have their convictions vacated and challenged.

The Supreme Court denied Morris’ request for a resentencing, and a panel of the Fourth Circuit of Appeals upheld the denial in March 2024.

“The jury instructions and jury verdicts in this case establish that the jury necessarily concluded that the defendant had an intent to kill in the commission of the underlying crimes and aided and abetted the actual killer in the commission of those crimes,” the panel wrote in opinion.

“Because the sentencing record establishes, as a matter of law, the defendant is not entitled to a retrial, the trial court properly denied the motion without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.”

In Monday’s opinion, Groban said the plain language of the statute weighs in favor of Morris’ argument that the law requires “a non-murderer to assist the actual murderer in the deadly act.”

“A person is not the ‘actual killer’ unless he directly causes the death. To aid the ‘actual killer’ is to aid the very act that defines that individual — the deadly act itself,” he wrote.

He continued: “The most natural reading, therefore, is that aiding the ‘actual murderer’ in the commission of the murder means aiding and abetting the deadly act rather than assisting the person (who ends up committing the deadly act) in any criminal act. Thus, the language of section 189, subdivision (e) is ‘clear and unambiguous.’

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that she disagreed with the majority that the language of SB 1437 was “clear and unambiguous,” but said she would adopt the interpretation most favorable to the defendant, which is consistent with the majority’s interpretation.

“In my view, the majority’s interpretation stands in relative balance with the interpretation offered by the Attorney General, (the Fourth Circuit of Appeals) and several other courts that have considered the case — that an accessory to the crime aids an actual murderer in the commission of first-degree murder by aiding the murderer in the underlying crime,” she said.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Yegan, sitting with the high court by designation, dissented, writing that “175 years of felony-murder precedent should not be overridden by a vague statute.”

“When the Legislature promulgates a rule that is ambiguous or supersedes or modifies the felony-murder rule, I will follow it. They have not done so, and the language used by the majority, “interpreting” Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2),1 is, in my view, a judicial overreach, it says.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fourth Appellate Panel and remanded the case “for reconsideration in the light of our opinion”. If the court finds that Morris’s request for a retrial is valid, there will be an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is entitled to relief under the amended law.

Representatives for neither party responded to a request for comment.