California appeals court decision backs law limiting who can be charged with felony murder

A panel of appeals court judges has upheld a state law limiting the legal exposure of those who aided and abetted, but did not carry out, murders, despite an earlier ruling by an Orange County Superior Court judge that the law was unconstitutional.

The appellate ruling tied to the potential re-sentencing of two convicts, one from Riverside County, comes after a number of conflicting lower-court rulings regarding a law that would largely limit the prosecution of felony murder to those who committed, or intended to commit, a killing.

It wasn’t clear Monday if the ruling upholding the law will be appealed to the state Supreme Court, or if it will stand as the final word.

The 2018 law scales back what is known as the state’s  “felony murder rule,” which allowed accomplices to be charged in connection to a victim’s death and to receive the same punishment as those who actually carried out the killing.

The appeals court decision backing the new law was applauded by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who in a twitter posting wrote that the revamped felony murder rule “is a major part of (California’s) efforts to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone.”

The recent law requires prosecutors to prove that a defendant had an intent to kill, was a major participant in the killing and behaved in a way that showed a reckless disregard for life.

The law also allowed those who had been convicted under the old felony murder laws to petition for re-sentencing, which could potentially lead to significantly lower terms in state prison.

Among those who petitioned for re-sentencing was Patty Ann Lamoureux, who in 2013 was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for the murder of Bradley Capen, who was found dead in his home in a rural area near Temecula.

Riverside County prosecutors argued that Kyle Christopher Miller, Capen’s nephew, had carried out the killing during a robbery. Lamoureux and another man were convicted of assisting Miller.

In a written ruling released last week, a pair of state appeals court judges found that that the evidence against Lamoureux “was insufficient to support the finding that Lamoureux had an intent to kill or acted with reckless indifference to human life,” and that she therefore wasn’t eligible for a life sentence.

Officials with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment.

In Orange County, prosecutors earlier this year successfully challenged the new state law, in connection to a 2016 killing at a gas station in Buena Park. Prosecutors allege that Jeffrey Tuli was the trigger man in the killing, while Aaron Jackson and Dejon Griffin were accomplices. All three men are from San Bernardino and are facing special circumstances murder charges.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg L. Prickett ruled that the new law was unconstitutional, finding that it improperly amended earlier ballot measure related to special circumstances murder cases. Since the earlier measures had been approved by voters, Prickett determined, the new law had to pass by a supermajority of lawmakers, rather than a simple majority.

It wasn’t immediately clear what impact the appeals court decision will have on the Orange County case, which has remained in limbo since Prickett’s ruling. Officials with the Orange County District Attorneys Office indicated they are looking into the appellate opinion, but declined to comment further.

In their written ruling, the state appeals court judges – Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Associate Justice Joan K. Irion – appeared to disagree with Prickett’s argument, writing that the Legislature did not impinge on the will of the voters. A third appellate judge, Associate Justice Terry B. O’Rourke disagreed with his colleagues, writing in a dissent that the new law “thwarts the initiative process without the consent of the people.”