Opinion ID: 1129033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish murder of the first degree in that there is no substantial evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the killing was deliberate. [1] Defendant does not dispute that the jury was properly instructed as to the elements of first degree murder. [2] An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. ( People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 [90 Cal. Rptr. 417, 475 P.2d 649].) The test is not whether a contrary conclusion might have been reached nor whether the reviewing court believes guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the jury that the prosecution had met its burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Id. ) (1a) Here the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom would support a conclusion that defendant deliberated his act before shooting Officer Klass. He had been stopped by police officers while fleeing from the jail. He had been advised to surrender and had been assured that he would not be hurt. He nonetheless attempted to continue his flight and when restrained by Officer Klass seized the officer's gun and, while the officer was lying on the ground with his back to defendant, shot the officer in the back. He had then attempted to shoot the second officer who sought to restrain him and had continued violently to resist capture. As in People v. Robillard (1960) 55 Cal.2d 88 [10 Cal. Rptr. 167, 358 P.2d 295, 83 A.L.R.2d 1086], the circumstances of the killing of Officer Klass afford a sufficient basis upon which the jury could infer that the killing was not a rash, impulsive act, and that defendant had in the course of his flight from jail weighed in his mind the possibility that the pursuing officers would apprehend him, and after having considered the reasons for and against such action, decided to resist capture and to kill if necessary. (Cf. People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [73 Cal. Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942].) (2) The length of time during which an intent to kill is pondered may vary with the individual and the circumstances. The test is the ability of the defendant to maturely and meaningfully contemplate the gravity of his intended act. ( People v. Risenhoover (1968) 70 Cal.2d 39, 52 [73 Cal. Rptr. 533, 447 P.2d 925]; People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [40 Cal. Rptr. 271, 394 P.2d 959]; People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 900 [156 P.2d 7]; People v. Sanchez (1864) 24 Cal. 17, 30.) (1b) There was substantial evidence here upon which the jury could find that defendant was able to and did kill deliberately.