Opinion ID: 2357828
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The attempted murder of John Doe

Text: (3) Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. (Pen. Code, § 21a; People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176].) ( People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 157 P.3d 1017].) Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence that he intended to kill John Doe, the driver of the Jeep. (4) When Doe drove through the intersection, defendant pulled himself up onto the window frame on the passenger side of his car, braced his arms on the roof, and aimed at Doe. He changed his target only when he noticed the patrol car and shot at the officers, instead. (See ante, pt. I.A.3.) The evidence supported the jury's conclusion that defendant intended to kill the officers. Defendant does not challenge those convictions here. The evidence is also compelling that defendant aimed at Doe intending to kill him. Indeed, at trial defense counsel argued that defendant was shooting at Doe, not at the officers. Simply pointing his gun at Doe under these circumstances is sufficient to support a finding of attempted murder. As we noted in People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 455 [194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697], the law of attempts would be largely without function if it could not be invoked until the trigger was pulled, the blow struck, or the money seized. Also instructive is our decision in People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745 [102 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 220 P.3d 820]. In Ervine we concluded that sufficient evidence supported a conviction for attempting to murder a third police officer, because the evidence indicated that the defendant wanted to kill all the officers at the scene but had undertaken a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing by firing ... at the [two] officers who posed the most immediate threat. ( Id. at p. 786.) In the present case, as in Ervine, it appeared that defendant was first trying to eliminate the threat posed by the police officers who were pursuing him, before returning his attention to Doe, the attempted murder victim.
Defendant contends the evidence was also insufficient to support the jury's verdict that the attempted murder of Doe was premeditated and deliberate. (5) An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. ( People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 543 [26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182]; People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 577, 831 P.2d 1159].) However, the requisite reflection need not span a specific or extended period of time. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity, and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly. ( People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1286-1287 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 185 P.3d 727] ( Harris ); People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 46 P.3d 335].) A conviction will be upheld on any reasonable theory supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577 [36 Cal.Rptr.3d 340, 123 P.3d 614]; People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 370.) Defendant clearly formed an intent to kill and took several steps to achieve that end. He took up a firearm, climbed out of a moving car, sat on the window frame, reached across the roof, braced himself, and aimed at Doe. He had ample time to premeditate and deliberate. (See Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1287.)