What constitutes a "major participant" in a crime?

"In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)

There is no minimum threshold of participation that qualifies a person as a "major participant" in the underlying felony; and the defendant need not necessarily be the ringleader or the triggerman. (People v. Proby (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 922.) "[T]he phrase 'major participant' is commonly understood and is not used in a technical sense peculiar to the law. The common meaning of 'major' includes 'notable or conspicuous in effect or scope' and 'one of the larger or more important members or units of a kind or group.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 933-934.)

Appellant claims that his conduct did not constitute that of a "major participant" because "[b]y the time appellant reached [Demarcus] Ralls, both the murder and robbery had already been committed." A similar contention was raised and rejected in People v. Hodgson (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 566 (Hodgson). In Hodgson, at the time the victim was shot in the head by a coparticipant, killing her instantly, and her property taken,

Page 20