Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Premeditated Murder.

Text: The jury found defendant guilty of the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of April James. Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for the first degree murder of April James, thus violating his federal due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree. To evaluate this claim, we must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuethat would support a rational trier of fact in finding [the defendant guilty] beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 642, 106 Cal. Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578, 162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) Three categories of evidence are helpful to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation in a murder case: (1) planning activity; (2) motive; and (3) manner of killing. ( People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942; see also People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 758, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754.) Evidence of each of the Anderson factors need not be present in order to support a finding of deliberation, but planning, or motive in conjunction either with planning or with manner of killing, must be present to support such a finding. ( People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 956-957, 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574, overruled on other grounds by People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89-91, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451, 999 P.2d 675.) A judgment will not be reversed so long as there is substantial evidence to support a rational trier of fact's conclusion that the murder committed was premeditated and deliberate. ( People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1126-1127, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 577, 831 P.2d 1159; People v. Sanchez (1864) 24 Cal. 17, 30, 1864 WL 537 ( Sanchez ).) Defendant stated that he saw April's reflection in the bathroom mirror before turning around and stabbing her. The act of planninginvolving deliberation and premeditationrequires nothing more than a successive thought[] of the mind. ( Sanchez, supra, 24 Cal. at p. 30; see also People v. Jones (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 341, 346, 30 Cal.Rptr. 280.) This brief period between seeing April's reflection and stabbing her is adequate for defendant to have reached the deliberate and premeditated decision to kill April. (See People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 767, 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485 [`[t]houghts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly'].) Evidence also was offered at trial as to motive and manner of killing. As discussed in the preceding section, the prosecution credibly advanced the theory that defendant killed April because she was a witnessshe saw him in the bathroom covered in Mary's blood and carrying a knife as he attempted to clean up, and defendant saw in the bathroom mirror that April had seen him at this critical juncture. Defendant's motive to kill April credibly could have been that he had been caught, and that it was necessary to kill the young girl to prevent her from informing the police and ultimately testifying as a witness against him. At that point April was the lone witness to his crime against Mary, and her killing served to facilitate his escape. The jury also fairly could have concluded that defendant was intent upon killing April due to the sheer number of wounds on April's body, many of which individually would have been fatal. This evidence as to the manner of killing supports a finding of deliberation. Even if April's wounds were only suggestive of rage, an inference of premeditation is not precluded. ( People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 518, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 199, 828 P.2d 101.) In short, considerable evidence was offered at trial that defendant murdered April with premeditation and deliberation because she would give evidence against him as to Mary's murder. Taken in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a reasonable trier of fact's determination of premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt.