People v. Jackson

472 P.3d 553 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

There was a longstanding animosity between two rival gangs: 'Sicc Made,' which is a subset of the 'Crips'; and 'Most Hated,' which is also known as 'Most Hated Gangsters.' D is a member and founder of Sicc Made. E.O. is a member of Most Hated. Members of Most Hated fired gunshots into an apartment where D stayed. No one was injured. A little over a year later, E.O. shot Amin El-Howeris, a member of Sicc Made, while at a party. El-Howeris was injured but survived. Approximately forty-eight hours later, D and a handful of fellow Sicc Made members met in an apartment to discuss retaliating against E.O. As someone passed around a gun with a laser sight, the group discussed shooting E.O. and 'finishing him off.' The men knew the location of the apartment where E.O. lived and were aware that he drove a gold SUV. D and his compatriots decided to go to E.O.'s apartment complex after the meeting. They traveled there in two Ford Explorers and parked in the parking lot and waited for E.O.'s arrival. Y.M., who was not involved with either gang, lived in the same apartment complex as E.O. He returned home from work at 3 a.m. driving a gold SUV similar to E.O.'s and happened to park near E.O.'s apartment. Believing that Y.M. was E.O., one of Ds cohorts got out of the Explorer D had driven to E.O.'s apartment, walked over to Y.M.'s SUV, and shot him twice in the head, killing him instantly. When the shooter realized he had killed the wrong person, he fired numerous shots into E.O.'s apartment. No one was in the apartment at the time. D was charged with: (1) first-degree murder (naming Y.M. as the victim); (2) attempted first-degree murder (naming E.O. as the victim); (3) criminal attempt to commit extreme indifference murder (naming E.O. as the victim, apparently based on the shots fired into his apartment after Y.M. was killed); (4) conspiracy to commit first-degree murder; and (5) accessory to the crime of first-degree murder. The State relied on a complicity theory of liability and the court instructed the jury accordingly. D was found guilty of all five charges. D appealed on grounds of double jeopardy. A unanimous division of the court of appeals sided with D. The court believed that there were two victims (Y.M. on count 1 and E.O. on count 2). It then invoked the transferred intent doctrine but still found a double jeopardy violation. This appeal resulted.