In re: Brigham
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted in 1987 of first-degree murder as an aider and abettor in a “mistaken identity” shooting. A jury convicted petitioner of first degree murder, but found that he did not personally use a firearm or inflict great bodily injury. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In 2014, the California Supreme Court held that an aider and abettor may be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder only under direct aiding and abetting principles, not under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Petitioner claimed that the record did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury convicted him of first-degree murder on a legally authorized ground. The court of appeal vacated the conviction. There is no way to tell from the verdict whether the jury relied on the invalid natural and probable consequences theory or viewed petitioner as a direct aider and abettor. The prosecution may either accept a reduction to second-degree murder or retry the greater offense under a direct aiding and abetting theory.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.