State high court hears 3 cases on criminal law changes

Three cases the California Supreme Court will hear Wednesday could have significant implications for how judges and attorneys interpret recent changes to the state's criminal statutes.

But the limited scope of the questions in one of them will leave unanswered the constitutionality of a highly contested law.

It's been two years since then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 1437 into law, eliminating first-degree murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The law has been routinely challenged by prosecutors who say it unconstitutionally amended several voter-approved ballot initiatives. But California courts of appeal have held it constitutional on each occasion.

Still, until the high court rules on the validity of the law, prosecutors have said they will continue to challenge it. And despite granting review of one SB 1437 case this week, the high court has chosen not to weigh in on the constitutional question.

Instead, it will decide two other questions: whether a trial court erred when it instructed a jury it could convict the defendant of first-degree murder based on the natural and probable consequences theory of liability; and whether the law not only eliminates first-degree murder liability but also second-degree murder liability under that doctrine.

The defendant, Joseph Gentile Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder in 2014 for his connection to the beating death of Guillermo Saavedra at a Mexican restaurant in Indio. He was sentenced to 25 years to life by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Graham A. Cribbs based on testimony from a co-perpetrator who became the prosecution's main witness, according to court documents.

In 2017, Gentile's conviction was reduced to second-degree murder, and he was resentenced to 15 years to life by a 4th District Court of Appeal panel. Because SB 1437 hadn't been enacted at that time, the panel relied on a California Supreme Court decision in 2014 that held defendants can't be found guilty of first-degree murder under the natural and probable consequences theory of accomplice liability. People v. Chiu, S202724 (2014).

After SB 1437 became law in 2019, Gentile argued in court filings his conviction should again be reconsidered because in his view, the measure "eliminated all murder liability, including second-degree murder liability, based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine."

The appeals court ruled that interpretation "would lead to absurd consequences." People v. Gentile, E069088 (Cal. App. 4th, May 30, 2019).

The scope of another relatively recent law could become more finite if the high court overturns a 2nd District Court of Appeal decision that held a third-strike felon is eligible for early parole consideration despite two prior convictions requiring him to register as a sex offender.

The question before the court is whether Proposition 57, known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, allows the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to exclude convicted sex offenders from being considered for early parole.

In 2017, Gregory Gadlin, convicted 10 years earlier of assault with a deadly weapon, forcible rape and forcible child molestation, filed a habeas corpus petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging prisons department regulations that excluded him from parole consideration. The court denied the petition because he was sentenced as a third-striker.

On appeal, the prisons department argued in court filings that felony sex offenders like Gadlin should be excluded from parole consideration because their underlying crimes are violent and they would pose a public safety threat if released.

The 2nd District panel disagreed, ruling Gadlin's exclusion contradicted the plain text of Proposition 57. In re: Gadlin, B289852 (Cal. App. 2nd, Jan. 28, 2019).

In a case some attorneys say exposes a split between Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, the high court will decide whether a trial court mistakenly reversed a human trafficking of a minor conviction because the intended victim was an undercover police officer posing as a 17-year-old.

Antonio Moses III was arrested in 2016 after contacting the undercover officer with the intent of recruiting her to work as a prostitute in Los Angeles. In 2017 he was sentenced to 24 years in prison on human trafficking of a minor, attempted murder and pandering charges.

On appeal, Moses argued his human trafficking conviction should be reversed because the intended victim of his crime was not a minor. The 4th District panel agreed, ruling, "The plain terms of [Penal Code] section 236.1(c) include as a required element that the victim must be 'a person who is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.'" People v. Moses III, G055621 (Cal. App. 4th, Aug. 14, 2019).

Despite arguing the case was wrongly decided, Becerra, who handled the appeal, did not petition for review. Instead, Spitzer asked the high court to grant review on its own motion, records show.