 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Truong1/3/2005
the fact that defendant did not strike at Ho a second time with his fist, but pulled out a deadly weapon and shot Ho in a vital area of his body, independently supports an inference that defendant intended to inflict mortal injuries on Ho. It is immaterial that Ho's wounds turned out to be superficial. (See People v. Chinchilla (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 683, 690 [act of firing toward victim at close range in a manner that could have inflicted a mortal wound had the bullet been on target is sufficient to support an inference of intent to kill].)
Finally, premeditation and deliberation in the attack on Mr. Ho may rationally be inferred from the fact that defendant attacked Ho first with his fist and then withdrew from that attack, pulled out a gun, made sure it was ready to fire, and shot Ho with it. The jury could reasonably infer from this sequence of events that defendant did not act rashly or impulsively when he fired his gun at Ho, but was carrying out a deliberate decision to escalate the conflict.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict on attempted murder.
Sufficiency of Evidence for First Degree Murder
Defendant contends that the jury's guilty verdict on count I, the first degree murder of Lung Lam, was not supported by evidence of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation.
Faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we "review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) In so doing, we " `presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (Id. at p. 576.)
Viewed in this light, the evidence showed the following: Defendant brought a loaded 9-millimeter, semi-automatic handgun with him to the bar. He first accosted Mr. Ho and struck him with his fist. Rather than continue to strike Ho with his fists, defendant stepped back, drew out his gun, pulled back on the slide to push a bullet into the chamber, and made sure the safety was off. He shot Ho in the abdomen, and then turned and stood over Mr. Lam, who was prone on the ground. He pointed the gun at Mr. Lam and fired it two or three times at close range into critical areas of Lam's body. One of the bullets entered the center of Mr. Lam's chest, perforating Lam's aorta, pulmonary trunk, and esophagus. A second bullet entered the back part of Lam's abdominal cavity and struck Lam's kidney.
"Premeditation and deliberation do not require much time . . . for ` " houghts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1127.) In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, the California Supreme Court identified three non-exclusive types of evidence that can be used to prove premeditation and deliberation: (1) planning activity, (2) motive, and (3) manner of killing. (Id. at pp. 26-27.) The Anderson typology may be used as a framework by appellate courts in evaluating whether the evidence adduced in the trial court supports an inference of premeditation. (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125.)
Even in the absence of evidence of planning and motive, an execution-style killing may support a jury finding of premeditation and deliberation. (People v. Lenart, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1127, citing People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 957.) In People v. Hawkins, the California S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|