News

Attorney general appeals to state Supreme Court after overturn of three jail guards' murder convictions

California appeal court threw out convictions of former Santa Clara County sheriff correctional officers in Michael Tyree case

The California Attorney General's Office has until Sept. 12, 2022, to petition a state appeals court decision that overturned the second-degree murder convictions of three former Santa Clara County correctional officers. Courtesy Getty Images.

The California Attorney General's Office has filed a petition for review with the state Supreme Court asking the justices to hear a case involving an Appeal Court opinion that overturned the second-degree murder convictions of three former correctional officers for the beating death of Santa Clara County inmate Michael Tyree, who had mental illness.

From left, former Santa Clara County correctional officers Matthew Thomas Farris, Jereh Catbagan Lubrin, and Rafael Rodriguez were convicted of second-degree murder in the 2015 beating death of inmate Michael Tyree. Courtesy Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.

Tyree was booked into Santa Clara County jail on July 11, 2015, for an alleged violation related to his probation for a misdemeanor drug possession that was being monitored in Santa Clara County Superior Court's mental health court and a petty theft charge. He was placed in with the general jail population instead of the acute psychiatric ward, although a previous booking classification for him had included mental health/suicidal codes. The 31-year-old man was fatally beaten by officers Matthew Thomas Farris, Jereh Catbagan Lubrin, and Rafael Rodriguez on Aug. 26, 2015.

A jury convicted the three men of second-degree murder in 2017. They were sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Their attorneys appealed the conviction, claiming the primary legal theory prosecutors used had been invalidated in 2018 by changes in state law.

In an Aug. 1, 2022, opinion, state Court of Appeal Judge Thomas Goethals, associate justice of the Fourth District Court's third division, overturned the men's convictions because Senate Bill 1437, which passed in 2018, declared invalid the "natural and probable consequences" theory. Goethals said in his opinion that the law is retroactive.

A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. An aider and abettor under the theory is liable for the natural and reasonable consequences of any act that he knowingly aided or encouraged.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

But SB 1437 states that "it is necessary to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life."

At the three men's original trial, the court's instructions gave the jury two alternative theories regarding second degree murder, Goethals noted. The first involved implied malice murder in which each defendant acted with malice aforethought to cause Tyree's death. The alternative theory involved a second-degree murder based on an aggravated assault or an assault under color of authority during which a person in each defendant's position would have known that murder was a "natural and probable consequence" of such an assault.

The state Attorney General's Office argued the jury was also instructed with a still-valid theory of second-degree murder liability — implied malice murder — and any error arising from the trial court’s instructions on the natural and probable consequence theory was harmless. Goethals disagreed.

On Aug. 23, the Court of Appeal denied the Attorney General's petition for a rehearing. Two additional judges declined to change the Goethals' judgment. His ruling also allows prosecutors to retry the three defendants "on a valid theory or theories of homicide with a properly instructed jury."

Sean Webby, a spokesperson for the Santa Clara County district attorney, said the office is waiting on the results of the attorney general's petition for review with the Supreme Court before deciding whether to retry the case. The petition for review is due Sept. 12.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Tyree's killing sparked the county's creation of a Blue Ribbon Commission to publicly examine Santa Clara County's custody operations, which made more than 600 recommendations on jail reform. The county settled an excessive use of force claim with Tyree's family for $3.6 million in 2016.

Sue Dremann
 
Sue Dremann is a veteran journalist who joined the Palo Alto Weekly in 2001. She is a breaking news and general assignment reporter who also covers the regional environmental, health and crime beats. Read more >>

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important crime news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Attorney general appeals to state Supreme Court after overturn of three jail guards' murder convictions

California appeal court threw out convictions of former Santa Clara County sheriff correctional officers in Michael Tyree case

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Sep 8, 2022, 2:08 pm

The California Attorney General's Office has filed a petition for review with the state Supreme Court asking the justices to hear a case involving an Appeal Court opinion that overturned the second-degree murder convictions of three former correctional officers for the beating death of Santa Clara County inmate Michael Tyree, who had mental illness.

Tyree was booked into Santa Clara County jail on July 11, 2015, for an alleged violation related to his probation for a misdemeanor drug possession that was being monitored in Santa Clara County Superior Court's mental health court and a petty theft charge. He was placed in with the general jail population instead of the acute psychiatric ward, although a previous booking classification for him had included mental health/suicidal codes. The 31-year-old man was fatally beaten by officers Matthew Thomas Farris, Jereh Catbagan Lubrin, and Rafael Rodriguez on Aug. 26, 2015.

A jury convicted the three men of second-degree murder in 2017. They were sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Their attorneys appealed the conviction, claiming the primary legal theory prosecutors used had been invalidated in 2018 by changes in state law.

In an Aug. 1, 2022, opinion, state Court of Appeal Judge Thomas Goethals, associate justice of the Fourth District Court's third division, overturned the men's convictions because Senate Bill 1437, which passed in 2018, declared invalid the "natural and probable consequences" theory. Goethals said in his opinion that the law is retroactive.

A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. An aider and abettor under the theory is liable for the natural and reasonable consequences of any act that he knowingly aided or encouraged.

But SB 1437 states that "it is necessary to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life."

At the three men's original trial, the court's instructions gave the jury two alternative theories regarding second degree murder, Goethals noted. The first involved implied malice murder in which each defendant acted with malice aforethought to cause Tyree's death. The alternative theory involved a second-degree murder based on an aggravated assault or an assault under color of authority during which a person in each defendant's position would have known that murder was a "natural and probable consequence" of such an assault.

The state Attorney General's Office argued the jury was also instructed with a still-valid theory of second-degree murder liability — implied malice murder — and any error arising from the trial court’s instructions on the natural and probable consequence theory was harmless. Goethals disagreed.

On Aug. 23, the Court of Appeal denied the Attorney General's petition for a rehearing. Two additional judges declined to change the Goethals' judgment. His ruling also allows prosecutors to retry the three defendants "on a valid theory or theories of homicide with a properly instructed jury."

Sean Webby, a spokesperson for the Santa Clara County district attorney, said the office is waiting on the results of the attorney general's petition for review with the Supreme Court before deciding whether to retry the case. The petition for review is due Sept. 12.

Tyree's killing sparked the county's creation of a Blue Ribbon Commission to publicly examine Santa Clara County's custody operations, which made more than 600 recommendations on jail reform. The county settled an excessive use of force claim with Tyree's family for $3.6 million in 2016.

Comments

Johnny Yuma
Registered user
Blossom Valley
on Sep 9, 2022 at 4:17 pm
Johnny Yuma, Blossom Valley
Registered user
on Sep 9, 2022 at 4:17 pm

That judge wasted the time of all those jurors. It appears that our community has a difficult time holding people accountable for brutality.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.