## Facts

- Thomas Gaetano Phillip Luparello had a romantic relationship with Terri Cesak, who later left him and reconciled with her husband.
- Luparello became intent on finding Terri’s whereabouts and focused on Mark Martin, whom he believed had that information.
- Luparello enlisted associates to confront Martin and obtain information “at any cost.”
- A group went to Martin’s residence and failed to obtain information.
- The next night, the group returned armed, lured Martin outside, and Martin was shot and killed.
- Luparello was not present at the killing, but the prosecution proceeded on conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories.
- A jury convicted Luparello and Carlos Orduna of conspiracy to commit assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and murder; firearm findings were also found true.
- Orduna was additionally found to have intentionally killed while lying in wait as a special circumstance.

## Issues

1. Whether an aider and abettor or co-conspirator is liable only for the offense he intended to facilitate, or also for other crimes that were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the planned enterprise.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error through prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings (including hearsay), or jury instructions on complicity doctrines.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether the sentences were cruel or unusual.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments.
- The court held that an aider and abettor is liable not only for the intended target offense, but also for any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by confederates in furtherance of the joint criminal venture.
- Applying that rule, the court concluded the homicide was a natural and probable consequence of sending armed associates to extract information “at any cost,” making Luparello liable for murder despite his absence from the scene.
- The court rejected defendants’ additional appellate claims, including challenges based on misconduct, hearsay, instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing, severance, and alleged jury bias.

## Legal Principles

- An aider and abettor is guilty of the offense he intended to facilitate or encourage and of any other offense committed by the principal that is a reasonably foreseeable (natural and probable) consequence of the aided conduct.
- Foreseeability is assessed from the scope and character of the planned criminal enterprise; initiating or encouraging a violent confrontation can make lethal violence reasonably foreseeable.
- In group criminal activity, accomplice liability may extend to the actual crime committed when it falls within the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of the venture, even if the accomplice did not specifically intend that precise result.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed murder convictions based on the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, holding that an accomplice who sets in motion a violent scheme may be liable for a confederate’s homicide when the killing is a reasonably foreseeable result of the plan.


People v. Luparello, 187 Cal. App. 3d 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)