In re S.G. CA4/3

Filed 1/24/23 In re S.G. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G061156

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DL1025)

v. OPINION

S.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, and Pamela P. King (S.B. Super. Ct.), Judges. Reversed. Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.G. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Lynne G. McGinnis and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

S.G. appeals from the juvenile court’s finding that he committed attempted murder. He contends that because the court could have found him liable under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which is no longer a legally valid theory of liability for attempted murder liability to make its finding, the finding must be reversed. The People argue the error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because “overwhelming evidence” showed appellant was the shooter. We disagree and reverse the true finding on the attempted murder count.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Shooting of A.C. On October 8, 2020, at around 3 a.m., A.C. was sitting in the driver’s seat of his parked car, watching a video on his cell phone when three young men approached. Two of them approached on the driver’s side, and the third approached on the passenger side. The first person who approached on the driver’s side had buzzed hair, and wore a white short sleeve T-shirt and gray shorts. The second person on the driver’s side was wearing a black hat or baseball cap with a cursive “A” on it, a white short sleeve T-shirt, gray shorts, and white socks that came up to his shins. The last person approached on the passenger side, and wore a blue long sleeve T-shirt, black shorts, socks, and a hat. A.C. identified this third person as appellant. The male with the buzzed hair asked A.C. a question, but because A.C. could not hear him, he started his car to roll down the window. The car malfunctioned and the car doors unlocked. The man with the buzzed hair pulled A.C. out of the car and then punched him. A.C. observed that he and his companion were armed with black pistols, which looked like something “between a Glock [.]40 and a [.]45 with an extended mag[azine].” They both pointed their guns at A.C. Meanwhile, the man in blue, who was on the passenger side, ran around the car and jumped into the driver’s seat.