Opinion ID: 1147228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instruction on Transferred Intent

Text: At defendant's request, the trial court instructed the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent (CALJIC No. 8.65) as follows: Where one attempts to kill a certain person, but by mistake or inadvertence kills a different person, the crime, if any, so committed is the same as though the person originally intended to be killed, had been killed. (10) Defendant now argues that the instruction on transferred intent was unnecessary and improper because both victims in this case were killed. He contends that the instruction may have prejudicially misled the jury to transfer findings of intent, premeditation and deliberation with respect to the killing of his father, Jay Hunter, to the killing of his stepmother, Ruth Chatburn Hunter. The contention is not meritorious even if the doctrine of invited error is ignored. While we have approved the rule of transferred intent in several cases involving homicides ( People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 189 [84 Cal. Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847]; People v. Sutic (1953) 41 Cal.2d 483, 491-492 [261 P.2d 241]; People v. Suesser (1904) 142 Cal. 354, 366-367 [75 P. 1093]), we have not considered application of the doctrine where both the intended and the unintended victim are killed or injured. (See, however, People v. Czahara (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 1468 [250 Cal. Rptr. 836]; People v. Birreuta (1984) 162 Cal. App.3d 454 [208 Cal. Rptr. 635]; People v. Carlson (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 349 [112 Cal. Rptr. 321].) Nor need we do so here. For even assuming arguendo that the giving of the instruction was error, no prejudice could conceivably have resulted therefrom. The record is unclear as to why defense counsel requested CALJIC No. 8.65. The prosecutor did not object to the instruction but observed that in his view it was not applicable to the facts. Defense counsel responded, It works both ways.... Apparently counsel thought the instruction would bolster his argument that any heat of passion or diminished capacity defense which mitigated the killing of Jay Hunter would apply to the killing of Ruth Hunter, for that was the only context in which counsel referred to the instruction during closing argument. On rebuttal, the prosecutor pointedly argued to the jury that the transferred intent instruction has no application to these facts, that in fact defendant had deliberated, premeditated and made a conscious decision to kill both [victims].... Indeed, the prosecution's case against defendant was premised entirely on the theory that defendant had committed two premeditated first degree murders. The record amply supported that thesis. The evidence of motive and planning as to both killings was overwhelming. Numerous witnesses testified concerning defendant's hatred of his father and bitter resentment of his stepmother. Defendant's grievance against his stepmother stemmed, in part, from her handling of his natural mother's estate. His dispute with her over this matter led to a further estrangement from his father. Several witnesses also testified as to defendant's simmering anger over the fact that his stepmother had apparently called the police to report defendant's unauthorized entry into his parents' home while they were away on vacation. Thomas Henkemeyer, defendant's friend from the Navy, recalled a conversation with defendant shortly before the murders in which defendant discussed plans to go up and kill his mother and father. Henkemeyer gathered that defendant's motive was to take vengeance [ sic ] against his mother and step-father [ sic ]. Henkemeyer also recalled receiving a telephone call from defendant shortly after the murders in which defendant stated that he had killed his mother and father. The physical evidence also strongly supported the theory that both killings were intentional. Both bodies were found in the bedroom, Jay Hunter's on the bed, Ruth Hunter's sprawled on the floor covering a telephone receiver. Autopsies revealed that Ruth Hunter died from two shotgun blasts to the head, either of which was capable of causing death; Jay Hunter had been shot four times. Eight expended shotgun casings were found in the bedroom and hall. The only fragment of evidence even remotely suggesting that Ruth Hunter's killing might have been unintentional was Dr. Lunde's testimony that defendant told him he had no memory of shooting Ruth. Dr. Lunde construed this statement as evidence of a posttrauma amnesia, however, not as evidence that defendant was unaware of Ruth's presence at the time of the killings. Thus, even assuming that the instruction on transferred intent was neither factually nor legally relevant, it is inconceivable that the jury might have been misled to transfer its findings that defendant premeditated and deliberated the intentional killing of Jay Hunter, to the killing of Ruth Hunter. There was no evidence that Ruth's killing was the unintentional byproduct of the killing of Jay; there was no argument to the jury to that effect; the jury gave no signs that it was confused by the instruction; the prosecutor expressly advised the jury to disregard the instruction and the trial court, of course, directed the jury to ignore any inapplicable instructions. Under the circumstances, we are persuaded that any instructional error  invited or otherwise  was harmless under any standard of prejudice.