Opinion ID: 2572600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: evidence of attempted murder

Text: Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the attempted murder of Eleanor Gallardo, arguing specifically that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he intended to kill her; that he took any act toward doing so; or that he acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. In reviewing a conviction challenged on the basis that the evidence was insufficient, this court `must 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. [Citations].' ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 767, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) The same standard of review is applicable when the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. ( People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413, 971 P.2d 618.) Here, the prosecution argued that bartender Toney's killing provided a model for defendant's attempt to murder bar patron Eleanor Gallardo. Toney's body was found lying face down on the floor of a closet behind the bar with two gunshot wounds to her head and defensive injuries on her hands and arms. Defendant, identified by bar co-owner Munns and a number of bar patrons, arrived at the bar sometime between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. and was the sole patron remaining at 12:15 p.m. when David Athenacio, the only other remaining patron, left. From this evidence, the prosecutor argued that defendant had waited for the other patrons to leave before he shot and robbed Toney. Toney's defensive injuries and head lacerations indicated a struggle that ended when she was forced to the floor and shot in the head at close range. The timing and manner of her death permit the inference defendant intended to leave no witnesses. His plan was interrupted by Gallardo's unexpected entrance into the bar. When Gallardo first encountered defendant, he had a bundle, presumably of cash and checks stolen from the bar, under one arm. Defendant pointed a gun at Gallardo and ordered her onto the floor, but she instead grabbed hold of the gun. She testified defendant kept trying to point the gun at her and in their struggle it fired. Defendant withdrew one hand from the gun to put Gallardo in a choke hold. When Gallardo, still holding the gun, twisted free of the choke hold, defendant initially pulled away from her, but as Gallardo fled from the bar he followed her outside. To prove an attempt, there must be proof of both specific intent to commit the crime and a direct, but ineffectual, act done toward its commission. ( People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 604, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 909 P.2d 994.) Thus, to prove that defendant attempted to murder Gallardo, it was necessary to prove that he intended to kill her when he ordered her at gunpoint onto the floor or, as they struggled for control of the gun, when he tried to turn the gun on her and it fired. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 827, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) Gallardo, unlike Toney, refused to lie on the floor and struggled successfully with defendant when he tried to get a choke hold on her neck. Had defendant intended merely to incapacitate or delay Gallardo long enough to make his escape, he could have fled when she gained control of his revolver, but instead he followed her outside onto the sidewalk. His pursuit of Gallardo supports the finding that defendant intended to kill her. Moreover, the jury could reasonably have found that defendant's earlier acts  either his ordering Gallardo at gunpoint to the floor or his attempt to turn the revolver's barrel at her as they struggled  were consistent with that intent. Defendant also argues there is insufficient evidence to establish that the attempted murder of Gallardo was premeditated and deliberated. He relies on People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942 ( Anderson ), in which this court described three types of evidence that indicate premeditation and deliberation. They are: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing  what may be characterized as `planning' activity; (2) facts about the defendant's prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a `motive' to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that killing was the result of `a pre-existing reflection' and `careful thought and weighing of considerations' rather than `mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed' [citation]; (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a `preconceived design' to take his victim's life in a particular way for a `reason' which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2). ( Id., at pp. 26-27, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942; see also People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 768, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) The Anderson factors are not the exclusive means for establishing premeditation and deliberation. ( People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 577, 831 P.2d 1159.) This court has, for example, concluded that an execution-style killing may be committed with such calculation that the manner of killing will support a jury finding of premeditation and deliberation, despite little or no evidence of planning and motive. ( People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 957, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574.) We have never required that there be an extensive time to premeditate and deliberate. ( People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 767, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485; People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1127, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 577, 831 P.2d 1159.) Having successfully overpowered and murdered Toney, it would not have taken long for defendant to decide he could similarly dispatch Gallardo. Defendant already had a successful murder plan; he needed to decide only whether to implement it again. Premeditation and deliberation do not require much time ( People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 371, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432), for `[t]houghts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.' ( People v. Mayfield, supra, at p. 767, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) The evidence described at the beginning of this section, although circumstantial, amply supported the jury's findings that defendant premeditated and deliberated a willful murder of bar patron Gallardo patterned on the just completed murder of bartender Toney, and that he intended to kill Gallardo from the time he pointed the Colt revolver at her and ordered her to the floor, until she managed to escape and run out of the bar with the gun, eluding his pursuit.