Opinion ID: 1171490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Manner

Text: The third type of evidence recognized by this court's cases as useful in determining premeditation is evidence of the manner of killing. Manner evidence encompasses 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 [planning or motive]. ( Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 27, original italics.) Here, the majority states: Both victims were killed by single contact shots, to Mary's head and Greg's neck, a method sufficiently `particular and exacting' to warrant an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design. ( People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1050 [251 Cal. Rptr. 757, 761 P.2d 680]; People v. Bloyd [(1987)] 43 Cal.3d [333,] 348 [233 Cal. Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802].) (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 518.) In People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035 [251 Cal. Rptr. 757, 761 P.2d 680], there was no evidence of a struggle, and we concluded that a close-range gunshot to the head was arguably sufficiently `particular and exacting' to permit an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design. ( Id. at p. 1050.) In People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333 [233 Cal. Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802], we determined that execution-style killings by shots at close range provided sufficient manner evidence, but found it significant that there was no evidence, such as bruises or lacerations, to demonstrate a struggle. ( Id. at p. 348.) This case is different from Caro and Bloyd. Here, there was considerable evidence of bruises and lacerations preceding Kniffin's death, including evidence that he had been struck by a gun barrel. This evidence is more consistent with a brutal attack than a calculated killing. At most, the evidence permits a very weak inference of manner. The facts do not show a `preconceived design' to take [Kniffin's] life in a particular way for a `reason' which the jury [could] reasonably infer from facts of [planning or motive]. ( Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 27.)