How have the courts interpreted the natural and probable consequences of the murder of a child?

In assessing whether the jury instructions given were erroneous, we "'"'must consider the instructions as a whole... [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.' [Citation.]"' [Citations.]" (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148-1149, overruled on another ground in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151.) Here the juries were not only given the instructions on causation and concurrent causation, but given an instruction on the natural and probable consequences theory, which provided the juries with correct instruction on the permissible way the uncharged target crimes of child abuse and infliction of physical punishment could be used to find defendants guilty of murder and/or assault causing the death of a child. (CALCRIM No. 403.) Such instruction expressly told each jury that in order to find the defendant guilty of murder and/or assault causing the death of a child, it must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the crime of child abuse or inflicting physical punishment was committed, (2) that defendant aided and abetted such crime, (3) that a coprincipal in such crime committed the crimes of murder and/or assault causing the death of a child, and (4) that the crime of murder and/or assault causing the death of a child was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the crime of child abuse or inflicting physical punishment. The entire charge to the jury considered together, precluded the jury from finding the defendant guilty based on a natural and probable consequences theory without first finding the other defendant committed murder and/or assault causing the death of a child.

Page 15