Opinion ID: 2508099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Deliberate, premeditated murder

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation because none of the categories of evidence set forth in People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942 were met in this case. In Anderson, we identified three categories of evidence relevant to resolving the issue of premeditation and deliberation: planning activity, motive, and manner of killing. ( People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) However, these factors are not exclusive, nor are they invariably determinative. ( People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 368, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769.) ` Anderson was simply intended to guide an appellate court's assessment whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citation.]' ( Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 331-332, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) As to planning and motive, defendant asserts that the evidence showed he only planned to camp with Purcell and asked anyone he could find for a ride to the campsite; he demonstrated no clear motive or intent to rob Janine before he killed her; and the evidence that he robbed her was minimal. As to the manner of killing, defendant claims that he strangled Janine suddenly because he used whatever was at hand, and then fled the scene. Defendant clearly ignores most, if not all, of the incriminating evidence presented at trial  to the point we question whether he is speaking about the same case. The evidence of his motive and planning was overwhelming. Defendant told the detectives that he needed money and a car to leave town to avoid the check forgery charges and that he decided to rob a friend  the easiest way to achieve his goaland to kill that person. He further described the details of his original plan  to lure Smith into a motel room and hit him on the head from behind  and the details of his changed plans  to replace Smith with Janine when he could not catch Smith alone, and to lure Janine into the desert at night by pretending he needed a ride to a campsite in Odessa Canyon. ( People v. Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th 345, 369, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769 [murder's isolated location, selected by defendant, is itself evidence of planning].) Smith confirmed that defendant had initially asked him for a ride and that, at defendant's request, he assured Janine that defendant needed a ride. Defendant further described how he planned to kill Janine with cords that he had obtained ahead of time, how he and Purcell committed the crimes, and what they did afterwards. Their actions included placing Janine's body in the trunk of the car, driving to another part of the canyon to dispose of the body, checking the body for money and to verify that Janine was dead, cashing one of Janine's checks, and fleeing the country. (See People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1128, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 577, 831 P.2d 1159 [the defendant's search of drawers and jewelry boxes  rather than immediate flight from scene  supported premeditation and deliberation].) Krizo's testimony  that a young man and woman opened the trunk of a car which matched the description of Janine's car  corroborated defendant's portrayal of his and Purcell's actions after they had killed Janine. As to manner of killing, the use of multiple weapons (cord, flashlight, and rocks)  supported by defendant's statements and the forensic evidence  reflected deliberation and premeditation rather than the result of a rash, impulsive act. ( People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1250, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225 [killing the same way twice  victim strangled and stabbed multiple times  supported inference of calculated design to ensure death, rather than `unconsidered explosion of violence']; People v. Bonillas (1989) 48 Cal.3d 757, 792, 257 Cal.Rptr. 895, 771 P.2d 844[[l]igature strangulation is in its nature a deliberate act].) Defendant further argues that he presented evidence, through Dr. Crinella's testimony, of his inability to form the specific intent to kill. He claims that the prosecution never refuted that evidence, and that consequently, there was insufficient evidence that he intended to kill. However, the jury remained free to reject Dr. Crinella's testimony even if it was uncontradicted. ( People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1231-1232, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1.) Moreover, Dr. Crinella's testimony did not strongly support a finding of no premeditation. Although Dr. Crinella opined that defendant was mentally ill and that his illness and mental disorders influenced his actions that led him to kill Janine, the doctor gave no opinion regarding defendant's intent when he committed the crimes. On cross-examination, Dr. Crinella conceded that defendant was not mentally retarded, that he knew right from wrong, that he had committed crimes for excitement or an adrenaline rush, that he could have planned the robbery and murder for nearly a week beforehand, and that he likely found the planning process exciting. Defendant told Dr. Crinella that committing the murder gave him an adrenaline rush that lasted three days. The doctor further acknowledged that other doctors had reached different diagnoses, finding that defendant had a sociopathic or antisocial personality disorder. Given the extensive evidence of premeditation and deliberation and the inconclusive evidence of mental disease or defect, the jury was entitled to reject the defense expert testimony. ( People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 350-351, 253 Cal. Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289.) Under all the circumstances, we find ample evidence of premeditation and deliberation.