Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Argument on intent to kill

Text: Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present argument refuting the prosecutor's claim in closing argument that defendant intended to kill Treto. Defendant asserts that defense counsel should have argued that defendant had no actual intent to kill due to a combination of alcohol intoxication and the side effects of medication. [8] At the time the present offenses were committed, this court had decided that a felony murder could not constitute a special circumstance that would render the defendant eligible for the death penalty unless, in committing the murder in the course of a felony, the defendant acted with the intent to kill. ( Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 153-154, 197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862 ( Carlos ), overruled by People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1138-1147, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306 [requiring a finding of intent to kill, in order to establish a special circumstance, only when the defendant was an aider and abettor rather than the perpetrator of the murder].) In the present case, during closing argument the prosecutor, after initially suggesting to the jury that the finding of intent to kill doesn't have anything to do with whether you find the special circumstance or not, nonetheless went on to argue that intent to kill had been established. The prosecutor pointed to the evidence establishing the position of the wound in the center of the body, the circumstance that defendant made no attempt to summon help following the shooting, and the testimony of Cebreros that he started running because he believed defendant was going to kill him. The defense argument had two primary elements. Counsel argued that Cebreros either was inaccurate or deliberately false in his identification of defendant as the killer, and emphasized the initial police reports of a second suspect. In addition, however, defense counsel argued that, whoever the shooter was, he had no intent to kill and merely fired the weapon in response to Treto's resistance. Defense counsel also asserted that whoever killed Treto formed the intent to kill and accomplished the killing prior to forming the intent to take Treto's property, and thus that a felony murder based upon robbery had not occurred. [9] As we observed above, counsel does not render ineffective assistance by choosing one or several theories of defense over another. ( People v. Thomas, supra, 2 Cal.4th 489, 531-532, 7 Cal. Rptr.2d 199, 828 P.2d 101.) By arguing as they did, defense counsel were able to focus upon the failure of the witnesses to identify defendant correctly as the killer, while at the same time seeking to undermine the assertion that there had been intent to kill regardless of the identity of the killer. The alternative approach that defendant here advocates, in effect, would have conceded defendant was the killer, in contravention of the chief defense theory. Defense counsel justifiably selected the former approach.