Opinion ID: 2519742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insufficiency of evidence of lying in wait

Text: Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he murdered Stopher by means of lying in wait (an alternate theory to felony murder and premeditated and deliberate first degree murder under count II) and the related special circumstance finding that he murdered Stopher while lying in wait. We disagree. As in People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at page 388, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708, [w]e focus on the special circumstance because it contains the more stringent requirements. [( People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1140, fn. 2, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 375, 847 P.2d 55.)] If, as we find, the evidence supports the special circumstance, it necessarily supports the [lying-in-wait] theory of first degree murder. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, the evidence showed defendant planned the trip to Hesperia and that he intended to do harm to both Stopher and Rose V. It further showed he and Joseph waited in Jones's van for up to several hours while parked on a hill close to the Montrose Street house, waiting for Rose V. and Stopher to come home. Indeed, defendant managed to converse with a member of the Hesperia Fire Department, who had approached them while they were parked in the van to inquire about a report of children playing in the area with fireworks, without disclosing his true murderous intentions. When Rose V. and Stopher finally arrived home, defendant and Joseph surprised Rose V. by wearing masks (it was Halloween) to gain easy entry into the home by ruse. Once inside, defendant wasted no time in subduing Rose V., directing Joseph to hold a gun to her head, and proceeding straight to the master bathroom where he broke down the locked door and fatally shot Stopher, who was in the shower, with several shotgun blasts to the head and torso. [11] We find the evidence plainly established that defendant intentionally murdered Stopher under circumstances that included a concealment of purpose, a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and, immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on his unsuspecting victims from a position of advantage. ( People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 557, 257 Cal.Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244.)