Conspiracy Liability for Robbery

Conspiracy Liability Very Broad for Robbery – Beware

Under California law, a person involved in a crime is either a principal or an accessory. Cases decided by our Supreme Court have included conspirators as principals, as conspirators fall within the “all persons concerned” language of Penal Code § 31, which defines who is a principal.

Further California cases have interpreted “all persons concerned” to extend to anyone concerned, “however slight such concern may be.” This wide definition did away with older classifications of principal in the first degree, second degree and accessories after before the fact, which limited liability to some degree.

In 2010, Breana Gomez was leaving a café a little after midnight. An African American man wearing a sheer, form-fitting mask pushed her up against a wall. She felt an object stick into her back that she understood to be a gun barrel. She then handed over her cell phone, car keys and a $20 bill.

The owner of the café saw the incident, ran inside and called 911. Froilan Medina also saw the incident. Medina then saw the robber run away with two other African American men.

When police arrived, Gomez described the man who robbed her as being with two other African American men. She said that the man who pushed the gun into her back was about six feet tall, thin, a moderate beard and a well-defined jaw and chin. He was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, light colored pants and a black beanie.

The owner of the café described the same man as six feet tall, African-American, with a medium build and wearing black pants and a black and white jacket.

Mr. Medina described the same man as about six feet tall, a small amount of facial hair and wearing a black and gray hooded sweatshirt and black baggie sweatpants.

Police combing the area found Abdi Mohammed walking down the street about four blocks away, using an umbrella to hide his face from the police. He was wearing gray sweatpants with white stripes down the side, a black hooded sweatshirt and a beanie. He also had a do-rag in his pocket. When they stopped Mohammed, he provided an alibi that he had been at his friend’s house all night, playing video games. Police checked out the alibi and it was found to be false.

The police then brought Gomez and Medina to the arrest location and each identified Mohammed as the robber, although Gomez said she was “80 percent” sure it was him. The other two men involved were never caught.

The San Diego District Attorney then charged Mohammed with a violation of
California Penal Code § 211 (“Robbery”) and conspiracy to commit robbery. The jury found him guilty and the judge sentenced Mohammed to five years in prison.

Mohammed then appealed the verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the perpetrator. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Abdi Mohamed (2011 DJDAR 17332), applied a standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. This is the proper standard.

While acknowledging that the various eyewitnesses’ descriptions of Mohammed did differ, the Court noted that Mohammed had tried to hide himself from police with the umbrella and that he gave a false alibi. To set aside the verdict, the Court noted, they needed to find the identity evidence “so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.” In other words, it was a very low standard and the Court, perhaps predictably, found the identity evidence sufficient to convict Mohammed of robbery.

Turning to the conspiracy conviction, the Court also affirmed the lower San Diego court, finding that Mohammed was identified sufficiently using the same standard above as one of the three folks running away from the café. Thus, Mohammed was one of “all persons concerned” with the crime and the jury’s finding of guilty of conspiracy was sustained.

In short, the standard for identifying one as a suspect can be quite low and the standard for establishing a conspiracy is even lower. Beware.

This article was written by Greg Hill. He has defended robbery cases in both state and federal court, as well as DUI’s, domestic violence and drug offenses all over the state of California. He is an attorney in Torrance, California and a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998). An arraignment is a criminal proceeding where the defendant is called before a court, informed of the charges, and asked to enter a plea. If you have never been arrested, you might not understand the point of an arraignment hearing. So why is this type of hearing important? Here are some of the reasons why the State might hold an arraignment:

• An arraignment was extremely important earlier in time because of the lack of most defendants’ ability to read. During the arraignment hearing the District Attorney would read the charges to the defendant so he understood what he was being charged with and could, in response, decide if he needed to hire an attorney, gather up witnesses and other evidence or simply plead guilty.
• This process helps to ensure all defendants have appointed an attorney and are prepared before trial. It also gives you the right to discovery of documents in the possession of the prosecution and allows an attorney to advise their client on what to expect going forward.
• During an arraignment, the prosecution may decide if they are going to try your case or not. If you plead guilty during the arraignment then you are sentenced and there is no need for a trial, but if you plead not guilty, further hearings to allow preparation for trial will be set.
• After the date of the arraignment you have ten days to file motions unless the judge gives you more time, which also makes having an attorney important. We usually extend this time period at the arraignment for you, as we want you to have time to review and comment upon the police report, the complaint and all other materials the DA or City Prosecutor may provide at the arraignment.

While the whole process of an arraignment hearing may seem rather unimportant, it is an extremely critical process and is not to be taken lightly. It is often where first impressions are made and the prosecution reveals its attitude about the seriousness of the charges, a likely plea bargain and the character of the defendant.

We at Greg Hill & Associates approach each arraignment as an opportunity to discuss the case with the prosecution, establish rapport with the prosecutor handling the case and, if necessary, clarify important facts that the police report may omit or misunderstand.

This short article was written by Greg Hill of Greg Hill & Associates in Torrance, California. Greg Hill & Associates defends those accused of all crimes, both in state and federal court. A large majority of the cases we handle involve DUI, domestic violence, violation of protective orders and drugs, however, we have broad experience defending those accused of other crimes as well. Greg Hill is a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998). Visit his firm’s website at www.greghillassociates.com or his firm’s Facebook page.