Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: As noted above, the prosecution proceeded on two theories of first degree murder: (i) premeditated and deliberate, and (ii) felony murder based on robbery and/or rape. Defendant asserts the evidence is insufficient to support either theory. (47) We will sustain the convictions if, after reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that a rational jury could have found the crimes proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 575-578 [162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255].) In this case, the evidence is sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction under either or both theories. a. Premeditated and deliberated first degree murder. (48) The record establishes defendant's planning activity, motive, and preconceived design to kill, and thus strongly supports a finding of premeditated and deliberated first degree murder. ( People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27 [73 Cal. Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942].) Defendant's planning is clear from the record. He informed Charlene he wanted her to get [him] a girl, and, armed with a gun, they set out to look for victims. At gunpoint he ordered Miller and Sowers into his car, drove them to a rural area, ordered Miller to remove his shoes, and shot him three times in the head at point-blank range. Back at his apartment, after he was finished with Sowers, he took her to another rural area and executed her as well. Charlene's testimony about these events was corroborated by expert witnesses and other circumstantial evidence. Likewise, the record discloses defendant's motive. He kidnapped the victims to fulfill his sexual fantasy, and killed both to avoid detection. Finally, the manner of killing demonstrates a preconceived design to kill. He shot both victims execution-style at point-blank range after first taking them to secluded rural areas. b. First degree felony murder. (49) The record also establishes that defendant harbored the specific intent to commit both robbery and rape (§ 189), and that the homicides occurred during the commission of these crimes. ( People v. Fonville (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 693, 706 [111 Cal. Rptr. 53].) Defendant expressly admitted his intent to rob Miller, and the evidence that he asked Miller for money  and then ordered him to relinquish his wallet  supports defendant's admission. He also had the intent to rape. As noted above, his goal was to get me a girl. After killing Miller he returned with Sowers to his apartment. During the drive back he embraced her and told her, You are going to be my Mary Ellen tonight. He took her into the bedroom, and for some time Charlene could hear the headboard of the bed knocking against the wall. Sowers emerged from the bedroom with her hands tied, and was driven to her execution. We find ample evidence of defendant's intent to commit both felonies, and the evidence plainly establishes the homicides occurred during the commission of both crimes.