revised felony-murder rule in California

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences doctrine].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; A

2026(People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449 (Curiel); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 .) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice 10 based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule as set forth in section 189, subdivision (e).

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984; Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 707-708; People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 957 ; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, 847-848 .) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).

2025(See People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984 (Reyes); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 (Strong); People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing 13 malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).

2026(People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 .) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on one’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule set forth in section 189, subdivision (e).

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences doctrine].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; A

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984; Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 707-708; People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 957 ; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, 847-848 .) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).

2025(See People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984 (Reyes); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 (Strong); People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing 13 malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).

2026(People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449 (Curiel); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 .) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice 10 based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule as set forth in section 189, subdivision (e).

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830 , 842–843.) It also narrowed the scope of the felony-murder 4 rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); see People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 , 448–449 (Curiel); People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558; People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468.) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; Arellano, at pp. 467- 468.) The Legislature also “created a resentencing procedure for defendants who had previously been convicted of murder under prior law.” (People v. Lop

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences doctrine].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; A

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences doctrine].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; A

2025(People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558; People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449 ; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Arellano, at pp. 467-468; Curiel,

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558; People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468.) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; Arellano, at pp. 467- 468.) The Legislature also “created a resentencing procedure for defendants who had previously been convicted of murder under prior law.” (People v. Lop

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558 (Patton); People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences doctrine].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; A

2025(See People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468- 469; People v. Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 .) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing he or she is entitled to relief. (§ 1172

2025(See People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469; People v. Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 .) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing he or she is entitled to relief. (§ 1172.

2026“If a defendant was not the actual killer or an aider and abettor acting with intent to kill, the [felony-murder] statute now requires that the defendant be a major participant in the felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 , 875 (Emanuel).) To provide relief to those with existing murder convictions based on now-invalid theories, the Legislature created a path to resentencing. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1.) “Petitioners seeking relief under section 1172.6 must, first, file a facially valid petition that states the

2026(People v. Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 648; People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835; People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469.) If the petitioner makes the requisite prima facie showing, the superior court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the challenged conviction and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c) & (d)(1); see People v. Morris, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 680; Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 559.) Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), provides that at the evidentiary hearin

2025(Id. at p. 10.) In relevant part, the court concluded that “the term ‘actual killer’ as used in the revised felony-murder rule of section 189, subdivision (e)(1) refers to someone who personally killed the victim and is not necessarily the same as a person who ‘caused’ the victim’s death.” (Id. at p. 4.) Based on the jury instructions, “the jury necessarily found that defendant ‘caused the death of another person’ and ‘did an act that caused the death of another person,’ ” but “for defendant to be liable for felony murder under section 189[, subdivision ](e), based on the prosecution’s theory

2024(See People v. Vang (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 64 , 91 [“the term ‘actual killer’ means someone who personally killed the victim”]; see also People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1 , 4 [“the term ‘actual killer’ as used in the revised felony-murder rule . . . refers to someone who personally killed the victim and is not necessarily the same as a person who ‘caused’ the victim’s death”].) Defendant C had the intent to kill, so under the majority’s interpretation of section 189 (e)(2), he would be liable for first degree felony murder if the People were simply able to prove that he was jointly engage

2026(People v. Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 648; People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835; People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469.) If the petitioner makes the requisite prima facie showing, the superior court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the challenged conviction and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c) & (d)(1); see People v. Morris, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 680; Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 559.) Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), provides that at the evidentiary hearin

2026(People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 835; People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 558; People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468.) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; Arellano, at pp. 467- 468.) The Legislature also “created a resentencing procedure for defendants who had previously been convicted of murder under prior law.” (People v. Lop

2026(People v. Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 648; People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835; People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469.) If the petitioner makes the requisite prima facie showing, the superior court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the challenged conviction and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c) & (d)(1); see People v. Morris, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 680; Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 559.) Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), provides that at the evidentiary hearin

2026(People v. Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 648; People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835; People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469.) If the petitioner makes the requisite prima facie showing, the superior court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the challenged conviction and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c) & (d)(1); see People v. Morris, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 680; Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 559.) Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), provides that at the evidentiary hearin

2025(See Patton, at p. 558; People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 984 (Reyes).) To convict a principal 7 of murder, section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on one’s participation in a crime and requires proof the principal acted with malice, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189, subdivision (e).4 To provide relief to those with existing murder convictions based on now-invalid theories, the Legislature created a path to resentencing codified in section 1172.6. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1; see Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th a

2025(See People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 (Lewis).) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing he or she is entitled to relief. (§ 1172.6,

2025(Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 558; People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 , 467-468; People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449 (Curiel); see People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 [felony murder]; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 [natural and probable consequences].) Section 188, subdivision (a)(3), now prohibits imputing malice based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a defendant of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule. (§§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e); Patton, at p. 558; Arellano, at pp

2025(See People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835]; People 7 v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469; People v. Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 562; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 .) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie

2025(Id., subds. (c), (d)(1); Patton, at p. 558.) In deciding whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6, “ ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971 ; accord, Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563.) “[T]he court may appropriately deny a petition at the prima facie stage if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” (People v. Harden (

2025(Id., subds. (c), (d)(1); Patton, at p. 558.) In deciding whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6, “ ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971 ; accord, Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563.) “[T]he court may appropriately deny a petition at the prima facie stage if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” (People v. Harden (

2025(See People v. Oyler, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 835]; People 7 v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469; People v. Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 562; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 .) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie

2025(See People v. Arellano, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 468-469; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 449-450.) If a section 1172.6 petition contains all the required information, the court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if requested. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(3); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 563; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963 (Lewis).) The People must file a response to the petition, the petitioner may file a reply, and the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing he or she is entitled to relief. (§ 1172.6,