Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence to prove premeditation and deliberation in the killing of Murray Lucas

Text: Defendant asserts that although the record supports findings of premeditation and deliberation with respect to the killings of defendant's mother and Ardell, it does not reflect sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation with respect to the killing of Murray Lucas, the boarder who resided with them. The test on appeal is whether a rational juror could, on the evidence presented, find the essential elements of the crime  here including premeditation and deliberation  beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Sanchez (1995) 12 Cal.4th 1, 31-32, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129, and cases cited.) We conclude that evidence of (i) the manner of killing and (ii) the planning activity both support the jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation in the killing of Murray Lucas. (See id., at pp. 32-33, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129; People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942.) The killing was accomplished by a single execution-style shot fired from close range into the victim's forehead, in circumstances showing no evidence of a struggle. This plainly supports a finding of premeditation and deliberation. Moreover, it is clear that defendant carefully planned the killing of his parents, and that avoidance of detection was a major aspect of his planning. The evidence shows that after test-firing his .22-caliber gun, defendant proceeded to his mother's home late at night and employed that same weapon at a time when the firing of shots might be disguised by the ambient sound of firecrackers set off during early Fourth of July celebrations. Defendant attempted to conceal the cause of death of his victims by carefully disposing of the ejected cartridges and attempting to set fire to the house. In this setting, the jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant's killing of the boarder, Murray Lucas, was part of defendant's overall plan to avoid detection. That defendant may have formulated this particular aspect of his plan (the killing of Murray) at the scene, and perhaps quickly, does not preclude a finding of premeditation. As we observed in Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th 1, 34, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129, `The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly....' Accordingly, we reject defendant's claim of insufficiency of evidence.