Opinion ID: 2600470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Second Degree Murder of Yu

Text: Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of the second degree murder of Tsai-Lian Yu, asserting that the evidence is insufficient to establish malice because it does not establish that he intended to kill Yu and, if he did, that he did not act in the heat of passion, or upon a sudden quarrel, or in unreasonable self-defense. This contention is meritless. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being ... with malice aforethought. (§ 187, subd. (a).) Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. (§ 188.) Murder that is committed with malice but is not premeditated is of the second degree. (§ 189.) As noted above, In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence ..., we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811.) The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. ( People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68.) From the evidence presented, the jury reasonably could have concluded that a few minutes after he shot Maria Hernandez and murdered Dale Okazaki, defendant used his car to force Yu's vehicle into the path of a parked car, left his car and forcibly removed Yu, who was a stranger to defendant, from her car as she pleaded for help, shot her twice as she struggled, then pushed her away and fled. The jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant acted with malice because he intentionally shot Yu twice at close range without provocation and acted with an abandoned and malignant heart. The evidence easily is sufficient to support defendant's conviction of second degree murder for killing Yu.