People v. Morris

── People v. Morris ── Court: California Supreme Court Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD CURTIS MORRIS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. S284751 Fourth Appellate District, Division Three G061916 Orange County Superior Court 08CF1591 May 4, 2026 Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, and Evans concurred. Chief Justice Guerrero filed a concurring opinion. Justice Yegan* filed a dissenting opinion. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.  PEOPLE v. MORRIS S284751 Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. Defendant Richard Morris, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6,1 seeking to vacate his murder conviction under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015). Under the former felony-murder rule, when the defendant killed someone while committing an “ ‘inherently dangerous felony,’ the defendant could be found guilty of the crime of murder, without any showing of ‘an intent to kill, or even implied malice, but merely an intent to commit the underlying felony.’ ” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 704 (Strong).) In an attempt “to more equitably sentence offenders in accordance with their involvement in homicides” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(b)), Senate Bill 1437 “significantly narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule.” (Strong, at p. 703.) Under section 187, the mens rea required for murder is malice aforethought. (§ 187, subd. (a).) Malice may be either express or implied. A deliberate intent to kill constitutes express malice. (§ 188, subd. (a)(1).) Implied malice is defined as acting without provocation or with an “abandoned and malignant heart” (§ 188, subd. (a)(2)), which a long line of cases 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1  PEOPLE v. MORRIS Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. has interpreted as acting with a conscious disregard for life. (See People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 968, 974; People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1181.) Before Senate Bill 1437’s amendment, in the case of a felony murder, the malice element could be supplied by proof of an intent to commit one of a subset of underlying felonies designated by statute. The amendment explicitly stated that malice “shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2), clarifying that the mere intent to commit one of those felonies was not, in itself, sufficient to establish that a nonkiller acted with malice. Murder also requires an actus reus. (People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 660.) The record of conviction here does not establish whether Morris or his codefendant was the actual killer of the decedent. Rather, the issue in this case is whether Morris is precluded from making a prima facie showing for resentencing relief under section 1172.6 as a nonkiller aider or abettor of robbery and rape with intent to kill. As relevant to this aider or abettor theory of liability, the amended felony-murder rule now states that when a person was not the actual killer, that person must have, “with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree.” (§ 189, subd. (e)(2).) Morris claims that, when a nonkiller acts with an intent to kill,