Opinion ID: 1160457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence for First Degree Felony Murder

Text: (30) Defendant contends, in substance, that the evidence is insufficient under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to support his conviction for the murder of Allen Birkman in the first degree under the theory of felony-murder robbery or attempted robbery. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the question we ask is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' ( People v. Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 269, quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573, 99 S.Ct. 2781], original italics.) Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction under the theory of felony-murder robbery or attempted robbery on the ground that it is inadequate to establish intent to steal  which is an element of robbery and attempted robbery (see, e.g., People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 243 [233 Cal. Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839]). Defendant is wrong. A rational trier of fact could surely have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact intend to steal. One need recall only the following. In his out-of-court statement, Birkman declared that the two persons who had accosted him attempted a robbery, and thereby implied that they intended to steal. On the witness stand, Ross testified that one of two persons was defendant. More evidence there is. But more is not required. [29]