Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2005, a jury convicted Terrence Dunson of four counts of attempted murder stemming from a September 2003 robbery at Snooky's bar in Antelope Valley. Dunson, Marshawn Jackson, and Brian McDonald reentered the bar, and Dunson hit owner John Tarry with a bar stool, forced him to open a safe, and threatened to kill the victims when Tarry could not. Jackson shot all four people in the bar, wounding three. The jury also convicted Dunson of kidnapping to commit robbery and robbery, and the court sentenced him to seven consecutive life terms under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
In 2022, Dunson petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, enacted through Senate Bill 1437 to limit accomplice liability for murder-related crimes by eliminating the natural and probable consequences doctrine and requiring an aider and abettor to act with intent to kill. The People conceded a prima facie case, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing relying on the trial transcripts and surveillance videos.
The trial court granted the petition as to one count—the attempted murder of John Long, shot immediately upon reentry, where the court found it unclear Dunson had formed a clear intent to kill—but denied it as to the other three victims. The court found Dunson told Jackson to 'just go back and kill them motherfuckers,' and that this statement and other evidence established his intent to kill. Dunson appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial as to Tapia, Collier, and Tarry, holding substantial evidence supported the findings that Dunson made the challenged statement and acted with intent to kill. Under the substantial evidence standard, the court examined the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presumed every reasonably deducible fact, and declined to reweigh credibility. Attempted murder requires specific intent to kill, and aiding and abetting requires knowledge of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and intent to facilitate the crime.
Tapia's testimony that she heard a man say 'just go back and kill them motherfuckers' was sufficient to establish the statement, even though Tarry did not testify to it. The surveillance video showed Dunson leaving the office just before Jackson shot the victims; the trial court reasonably excluded Jackson as the speaker because he would not command himself aloud, and excluded McDonald, who was at the bar collecting liquor bottles and not near the office.
Even if Dunson said 'shoot' rather than 'kill,' the court held his intent to kill was still evident. His earlier statements—telling an accomplice to 'kill this motherfucker' and threatening to 'kill these people'—his command as the victims huddled on the office floor, and his presence, orchestration, and flight with his accomplices all established that he aided and abetted the three attempted murders with intent to kill.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence—Tapia's testimony plus reasonable inferences from the surveillance video—supported the finding that Dunson made the 'kill them motherfuckers' statement.
- A single witness's testimony can support a finding unless physically impossible or inherently improbable; conflicts do not require reversal when the trial court credits one witness.
- The trial court reasonably excluded Jackson and McDonald as the speaker, leaving Dunson as the only logical person to have made the statement.
- Even if Dunson said 'shoot' instead of 'kill,' the statement still evidenced intent to kill, reinforced by his earlier threats and commands during the robbery.
- Dunson's leadership role, presence throughout the incident, failure to prevent the violence, and flight with his accomplices established that he aided and abetted the attempted murders of Tapia, Collier, and Tarry with intent to kill.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how appellate courts apply substantial evidence review to a section 1172.6 denial: they will not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility conflicts, and reasonable inferences drawn by the trial court stand. Circumstantial evidence—statements, conduct, and the defendant's role in the crime—can establish the specific intent to kill required for aider-and-abettor liability under current California law.
The partial grant as to Long underscores the fact-specific nature of section 1172.6 proceedings, distinguishing the immediate shooting, where Dunson's intent to kill was unclear, from the later shootings of Tapia, Collier, and Tarry, where the evidence supported a ripened intent to kill.