California high court orders new look at sentence for 1987 murder

(CN) — The California Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower court’s decision denying the reconsideration of resentencing for a man convicted of first-degree murder in 2013, ruling that under a new law, a defendant must have aided or abetted the actual killer in the murder itself to be liable.

“We interpret the statutory language to mean just what it says: The phrase ‘aided … or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree’ requires proof the defendant aided or abetted the actual killer in the lethal act itself and not just the underlying felony,” Justice Joshua Groban wrote for the majority.

The decision stems from an appeal for resentencing brought by Richard Morris Jr., who was convicted of first-degree murder of James Stockwell, the owner of a topless bar, in 2013.

On Jan. 1, 1987, Morris and another man attacked Stockwell and his girlfriend, S.F., as they returned to his residence late at night. During the robbery-turned-murder, Stockwell and his girlfriend were ordered to lie down, and the couple offered the men money and jewelry. Both were then taken upstairs, where the men proceeded to rape S.F., tie her up and tell her they were taking Stockwell to his club.

After the perpetrators left in Stockwell’s car, S.F. realized he had been shot. She went to a neighbor’s home to help, and when she returned, she discovered Stockwell was dead. It was determined he died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

DNA samples were taken from S.F. after the attack but not analyzed until 2009 and 2012 because DNA was not yet available when the crime occurred. It was found that the DNA from S.F.’s samples matched Morris’ DNA.

Morris was charged with one count of first-degree murder in December 2011. In 2013, a jury convicted Morris of first-degree murder of Stockwell, more than 25 years after the crime, finding true special circumstances for rape, robbery and murder for financial gain. Morris was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus five years, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal in 2015.

In 2022, Morris filed a petition for resentencing in Orange County Superior Court, arguing he could not be convicted of first-degree murder under new changes to law because he did not aid the actual killer in the lethal act that killed Stockwell.

Previously, the state law defined first-degree murder as “all murder that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, specified felonies, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem and kidnapping.”

However, Senate Bill 1437, signed into law in September 2018, narrowed the accomplice liability for felony murder to read that nonkillers can only be liable for murder if they either, “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,” or they were a “major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

The law also allowed for those with murder convictions to file a petition to have their convictions vacated and to be resentenced.

The Superior Court denied Morris’ petition for resentencing, and a Fourth Appellate District panel affirmed the denial in March 2024.

“The jury instructions and jury verdicts in this case establish the jury necessarily concluded defendant possessed an intent to kill during the commission of the underlying felonies and aided and abetted the actual killer in committing those felonies,” the panel wrote in its opinion.

“Because the record of conviction establishes, as a matter of law, the defendant is not eligible for resentencing, the trial court properly denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.”

In Monday’s opinion, Groban said the plain language of the statute weighs in favor of Morris’ argument that the law requires “a nonkiller to aid the actual killer in the lethal act.”

“A person is not ‘the actual killer’ unless they directly cause a death. To aid ‘the actual killer’ is to aid the very act that defines that individual — the lethal act itself,” he wrote.

He continued: “The most natural reading, therefore, is that aiding ‘the actual killer’ with the commission of murder implies aiding with the lethal act rather than aiding the person (who ends up committing the lethal act) with some felonious act. In this way, the language of section 189, subdivision (e) is ‘plain and unambiguous.’”

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that she disagreed with the majority that the language of SB 1437 was “plain and unambiguous,” but said she would adopt the interpretation most favorable to the defendant, which aligns with the majority’s interpretation.

“In my view, the majority’s interpretation stands in relative equipoise to the interpretation advanced by the attorney general, the [Fourth Appellate District], and several other courts that have considered the issue — that a felony participant aids an actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree by aiding the killer in the underlying felony,” she said.

Second Appellate District Associate Justice Kenneth Yegan, sitting with the high court by designation, dissented, writing that “175 years of felony-murder precedent should not be set aside by an ambiguous statute.”

“When the Legislature announces an unambiguous rule either superseding or modifying the felony-murder rule, I will follow it. They have not done so, and the language seized upon by the majority, ‘interpreting’ Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2),1 is, in my opinion, a judicial stretch. There is way too much ‘interpretation’ going on here,” she said.

The high court reversed the Fourth Appellate District panel’s ruling and remanded the case “for reconsideration in light of our opinion.” If the court finds that Morris’ resentencing request has merit, there will be an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is entitled to relief under the amended law.

Representatives for either party did not respond to a request for comment.

Follow @mhattridge_