## Facts

- Richard D. Prettyman beat and killed Gaylord “Vance” Van Camp, a homeless man, using a pipe.
- The prosecution charged Debra Jane Bray as an accomplice to murder, asserting she encouraged the attack in connection with a dispute over her wallet.
- Witnesses heard Bray say they were going to “get” Van Camp and observed Prettyman strike Van Camp with a steel pipe.
- Defendants were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder; the jury convicted both of first-degree murder and acquitted both of conspiracy.
- The prosecution argued Bray could be guilty either as a direct aider and abettor of murder or under the “natural and probable consequences” theory, based on her aiding and abetting an uncharged target offense.
- The trial court instructed on the natural-and-probable-consequences theory but did not identify or define any specific uncharged target offense Bray allegedly aided and abetted.

## Issues

1. When the prosecution relies on the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine for accomplice liability, must the trial court, without a request, identify and describe the specific target crime(s) the defendant allegedly aided and abetted?
2. If the court fails to identify and describe the target crime(s), is the instructional error reversible on this record?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that when the prosecution relies on the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, the trial court must sua sponte identify and describe the target crime(s) the defendant might have assisted or encouraged.
- The Court concluded the trial court erred by giving a generic instruction that allowed conviction based on uncharged target offenses without specifying what those offenses were.
- The Court found the error harmless and affirmed Bray’s murder conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, an aider and abettor of a target crime is also liable for a different nontarget crime committed by a confederate if the nontarget crime was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime.
- To impose liability for a nontarget offense under this doctrine, the jury must find: (1) the defendant knew the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose; (2) the defendant intended to commit, encourage, or facilitate the target crime; (3) the defendant aided, promoted, encouraged, or instigated the target crime; (4) a confederate committed a nontarget offense; and (5) the nontarget offense was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime.
- Because foreseeability is evaluated in relation to a particular target crime, correct instructions must identify and define the target crime(s) to guide the jury’s analysis and prevent speculation about what conduct is criminal.
- The duty to identify and describe target crimes is a sua sponte obligation when that theory is presented to the jury.
- Failure to provide the required target-crime instructions is subject to harmless error review; affirmance is proper where the record shows no reasonable likelihood the omission affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

When the prosecution seeks accomplice liability for a charged nontarget offense under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, the trial court must, on its own initiative, specify and define the target crime(s) the defendant allegedly aided and abetted; although omission of those instructions is error, it may be harmless where the evidence supports guilt as a direct aider and abettor of the charged offense.


People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal. 4th 248 (Cal. 1996)