A two decades old murder in San Bernardino County just set precedent for interpreting one of California’s biggest criminal reforms in the past five years.
Senate Bill 1437, passed in 2018 and now codified as Penal Code Section 1172.6, restricted a rule that allowed people to be convicted for murder even if they did not directly kill the victim. For example, a person who committed a home invasion, during which a co-perpetrator fatally shot the homeowner, could be convicted of murder.
The rule was inherited from English Common Law, but had been walked back in most countries that had adopted it, according to a 2018 California Senate report. England and Wales removed it in 1957, Australia replaced it in 1958, Northern Ireland removed it in 1966, and it was found unconstitutional in Canada in 1987, the report said.
Twenty percent of murder convictions in the United States were through the rule.
Penal Code Section 1172.6 also includes a walk-back clause that vacates murder convictions for defendants who had been convicted under the theory before 2018, like Gregory Vance Jr.
The crime
The appellate ruling laid out the facts of the case: Vance had been running a fraudulent check-cashing scheme with his girlfriend, Katherine Schumann, and the victim, whom the appellate ruling does not name. Vance and Schumann both believed the victim was taking more than his share of the proceeds. They went, armed with knives, to the victim’s home.
Prosecutors claimed Vance fatally stabbed the victim, while Vance maintained it was Schumann. Vance was convicted of first degree murder, under a felony murder theory, and first degree burglary in 2003. He was sentenced to 56 years to life in prison.
Burden of proof
Vance petitioned to be resentenced under Penal Code Section 1172.6 in 2019. At a hearing, San Bernardino Superior Judge Steve Malone found substantial evidence that Vance was the actual killer, and denied the petition.
Vance appealed, arguing that Malone should have used a higher burden of proof than only finding substantial evidence.
The Court of Appeal, in this published ruling, found that the burden of proof by itself does not automatically overturn a murder conviction under Section 1172.6.
In addition, the petitioner must prove that, in the absence of the error, they would have had a more favorable outcome in their case.
“We will also hold that, in a section 1172.6 proceeding, the trial court’s erroneous application of an unduly low burden of proof is not reversible per se. Rather, the appellant has the burden of showing that it is reasonably probable that, in the absence of the error, he or she would have enjoyed a more favorable outcome,” the Court of Appeal ruled.
Prosecutors raised this argument in their appellate briefs, but Vance’s response brief did not argue that he would have had a better outcome. During oral argument, his counsel conceded that he could not show the outcome would have changed if the court used a higher burden.
Because of this, the Court of Appeal ruled that Vance’s murder conviction stands.
Case information
Deputy Attorneys General Robin Urbanski, Alan Amann and Minh Le represented the state.
Rex Williams, under appointment, represented Vance.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez wrote the opinion, which Justices Art McKinster and Michael Raphael joined.
San Bernardino Case No. FSB032415
Appellate Case No. E079750.Read the ruling here.
