Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Degree Murder of Diane

Text: The prosecution tried the case under a theory that the murder of Diane either was premeditated or was perpetrated during the commission of a rape or attempted rape. Defendant's claim of insufficiency of the evidence thus relates to the issues of intent to kill, the underlying felony of rape, and an independent felonious purpose on his part. (See People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1090, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40.) Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he committed the murderous act. The evidence of defendant's culpability in the charged offenses, noted below, makes clear that a rational trier of fact could have found that defendant, having committed or attempted a sexual assault upon Diane, thereafter killed her, and that both the prosecution's premeditation and felony-murder theories were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Our decision in People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1048, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40, summarized the principles that guide our analysis of defendant's contentions relating to the first degree murder of Diane: `Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being ... with malice aforethought.' (... § 187, subd. (a).) [¶] As pertinent here, `[a]ll murder which is perpetrated ... by any... kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing ... is murder of the first degree....' (... § 189.) The mental state required is, of course, a deliberate and premeditated intent to kill with malice aforethought. (See ... §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) [¶] Similarly, `[a]ll murder ... which is Committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,' certain enumerated felonies, including rape, is `murder of the first degree....' (... § 189.) The mental state required is simply the specific intent to commit the underlying felony; neither intent to kill, deliberation, premeditation, nor malice aforethought is needed. (See ... People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869, 236 P.2d 570; see, generally, 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law [(2d ed.1988)], Crimes Against the Person, § 470, p. 528; see also People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 346, 253 Cal.Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289 [stating that `[w]e have required as part of the felonymurder doctrine that the jury find the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit one of the enumerated felonies, even where that felony is a crime such as rape'].) There is no requirement of a strict `causal' (e.g., People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1016, 248 Cal.Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017) or `temporal' (e.g., People v. Hernandez, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 348, 253 Cal.Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289) relationship between the `felony' and the `murder.' All that is demanded is that the two `are parts of one continuous transaction.' (E.g., People v. Ainsworth, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1016, 248 Cal.Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017; see, e.g., People v. Hernandez, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 348, 253 Cal.Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289.) There is, however, a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying felony. (See, e.g., People v. Whitehorn (1963) 60 Cal.2d 256, 264 [32 Cal.Rptr. 199, 383 P.2d 783].) ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1085, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40.) A rational trier of fact readily could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation in intentionally killing Diane. Dr. Dewitt Hunter, the Riverside County pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim, testified that at least five distinct blows  each one of which was capable of rendering the victim unconscious  were exerted against the back of the victim's head, probably with the use of a rock or a brick like instrument. The victim's skull was fractured, a circumstance that required a large amount of force. Her head was driven six inches into the ground. Beside her was a shoe impression that matched one of defendant's shoes, as well as a beer bottle that matched the beer that the trio had purchased earlier that day. Amy testified that defendant declared to her: [L]ook, you're friend was an asshole, she called me a few names, and I think she's dead. The nature and severity of Diane's wounds, together with defendant's own statements, support a finding that defendant willfully and with premeditation murdered her. (See People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 433, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388; People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 270, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861; see also People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th 195, 247, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643 [the jury could conclude that the defendant killed his victim to silence her as a possible witness to her own sexual assault].) [17] Similarly, a rational trier of fact could have determined with the requisite degree of certainty that defendant murdered Diane while he was engaged in raping her or attempting to rape her. Her partially clothed body (naked from the waist down, with panties wrapped around one leg), the evidence of force and violence including abrasions and contusions on the victim's thighs, the presence of a foreign pubic hair on her thigh, the reddening of her vaginal area, and the discovery of a Vaseline-like substance near her vaginal entrance (the same substance defendant used in his rape of Amy), support the reasonable inference that a rape or attempted rape occurred. ( People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 405, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221; People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 553, 257 Cal.Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244.) Amy testified that when defendant attempted to sodomize her, and had difficulty obtaining an erection, he informed her: [I]t's hard for me to get it up after I just got it on with your friend. In view of the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact reasonably could have found that defendant committed the first degree murder of Diane while engaged in the course of a rape or attempted rape.