In re Loza

In 2004, Cesar Loza handed a gun to a fellow gang member, who shot and killed a rival. A jury convicted Loza of first degree premeditated murder after being instructed on two derivative liability theories: direct aider and abettor liability, and the natural and probable consequences theory. In 2014, the California Supreme Court held that the natural and probable consequences theory could no longer support a premeditated murder conviction. In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Court of Appeal could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury relied on the legally valid direct aider and abettor liability theory; therefore, it vacated Loza’s first degree murder conviction. View "In re Loza" on Justia Law