## Facts

- Keefer encouraged Chapman to tie up Lee Yuen.
- After Yuen was tied, Chapman later killed Yuen.
- The killing occurred without Keefer’s knowledge, according to Keefer’s account at trial.
- Keefer’s defense was that he was not present when Yuen was killed.
- Keefer’s defense also asserted he did not aid or abet Chapman in the killing and did not conspire with Chapman to kill Yuen.
- The prosecution charged Keefer with murder based on his earlier involvement with restraining Yuen and the overall events surrounding the homicide.
- At trial, Keefer requested a jury instruction stating that the jury could not convict him of murder if it found he was not present at the killing, did not aid or abet the killing, and did not conspire to kill Yuen.
- The trial court refused the requested instruction, and the jury convicted Keefer of murder.
- Keefer appealed from the judgment of conviction and related order.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that Keefer could not be convicted of murder if he was not present at the killing and did not aid or abet, or conspire with Chapman in, the killing?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction.
- The court held the requested instruction stated a correct rule tied to the defense evidence and should have been given.
- Because the instruction would have allowed the jury to decide the case under Keefer’s version of events, its refusal was prejudicial error.
- Judgment and order were reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to an instruction that submits his defense to the jury when there is evidence that, if believed, would legally defeat the charged offense.
- A person is not guilty of murder as a principal merely because he encouraged or participated in a lesser unlawful act, if the later homicide was committed by another and the evidence would allow a finding that the defendant was not present for, did not aid or abet, and did not agree to the killing.
- Liability as a principal for homicide requires proof connecting the defendant to the killing itself (such as presence with participation, aiding and abetting, or agreement to bring about the homicide).
- Post-homicide conduct such as helping conceal the crime may support liability as an accessory after the fact, but does not by itself establish principal liability for murder.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence allowed the jury to accept Keefer’s account that he was absent from the killing and neither aided, abetted, nor agreed to the homicide, the jury needed an instruction explaining that those findings would require an acquittal of murder; the refusal to give that instruction required reversal and a new trial.


People v. Keefer, 3 P. 818 (1884)