The Supreme Court yesterday denied review in People v. Johnson, but three justices filed an extended separate concurring statement.
In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a petition to resentence the defendant, who was convicted of felony murder committed when he was 17, even though he did not commit the killing. Division One concluded that “substantial evidence supports the [superior] court’s finding that Johnson acted with reckless indifference to human life” when an accomplice beat a robbery victim to death with a baseball bat.
The case had been a grant-and-hold for the decision in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 (see here and here).
The concurring statement by Justice Evans and signed by Justices Liu and Groban says, “This is a case in which proper consideration of youth might have affected the determination that Johnson acted with reckless indifference to human life.” And the justices “question[ed] whether [the Division One] analysis accorded appropriate weight to the factor of Johnson’s youth.”
Nonetheless, the statement said review denial was appropriate because the petition for review “does not adequately contest the Court of Appeal’s assessment of youth to allow this court to elucidate the proper role of youth in whether an individual acted with reckless indifference to life” and because “other mechanisms, including possible consideration for a gubernatorial pardon, may allow for proper consideration of Johnson’s youth as it affected his involvement in this ill considered and tragic crime.”
This is yet another case that the Supreme Court has dealt with concerning SB 1437, 2018 legislation that limited criminal liability for felony murder and allowed for resentencing of certain defendants convicted under pre-SB 1437 law. The court has issued two SB 1437 opinions in just the last two weeks. (See here and here.)
