People v. Coley
Annotate this Case
After a 2009 drive-by shooting killed one man while his companion escaped, the prosecution argued that Coley was the car’s driver and Peters was the shooter. The two were jointly charged with first-degree murder with special circumstances and with attempted murder, with firearm and gang enhancements. The jury was instructed on first-degree murder based on theories of premeditation and deliberation; second-degree murder based on either express or implied malice; attempted murder, both with and without premeditation; and direct aiding and abetting. The jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Both were convicted of second-degree murder and attempted murder without premeditation.
In 2018, S.B. 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine for finding a defendant guilty of murder and limited the felony-murder rule to cases where the defendant was the actual killer, acted with an intent to kill, or acted as a “major participant” in the underlying felony and with “reckless indifference to human life.” Qualifying individuals could seek resentencing if they could not now be convicted of murder under the amended law. In 2022, S.B. 775, allowed resentencing for persons convicted of murder under any “theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.”
The trial court denied Coley’s petition for resentencing, acknowledging that the jury instructions on implied malice contained a natural and probable consequences component, but reasoning that the jury found express malice. The court of appeal, on transfer from the California Supreme Court, again affirmed the denial of relief. Direct aiding and abetting remains a valid theory of attempted murder. By finding Coley guilty of attempted murder, the jury necessarily found he had personally harbored intent to kill or express malice when he aided and abetted the second-degree murder.
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.