Opinion ID: 2534147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence as to intent

Text: Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he had the requisite intent to kill his victims. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a special circumstance, as for a conviction, we ask 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 allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 607, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 271, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 678, 286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) As proof of defendant's intent to kill, the prosecution relied on his confession to Buchanan that, upon seeing the apparently lifeless body of Mr. Freiri, defendant thought to himself, If you kill one you might as well kill them both. Defendant contends his statement to Buchanan is susceptible to the interpretation, not that he intended to kill the victims, but that he realized the penalty provided by law would be the same whether both or only one of them were killed. While that is true, defendant did not urge the less damning interpretation below. At trial, he denied having made the statement to Buchanan at all, and claimed to have had nothing to do with these crimes. More to the point, although the language used by defendant was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the interpretation urged by the prosecution, that defendant intended to kill his victims, was certainly one reasonable jurors could reach. In the alternative, and assuming arguendo the evidence of his intent to kill was sufficient with regard to Mrs. Caton, defendant contends it was insufficient as to Mr. Freiri. The statement the prosecution relies upon, defendant points out, concerned a thoughtIf you kill one you might as well kill them boththat occurred to defendant after he discovered Mr. Freiri had apparently been killed by Cullumber. The very basis for the thought was the assumption that Mr. Freiri was dead.... If one thinks that a person is dead, there can be no intent to kill that person. However, Buchanan's testimony as to defendants statement did not occur in a vacuum. While the prosecution did not rely upon it, there was ample evidence defendant formed the intent to kill Mr. Freiri before he discovered his body. ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 678-679, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752; People v. Allison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 879, 896-898, 258 Cal.Rptr. 208, 771 P.2d 1294.) Under the evidence, the jury was entitled to reach the following conclusions: The cord found around Mr. Freiri's neck came from the venetian blind in defendants apartment, and defendant was responsible for bringing it to Mrs. Caton's house. Defendant was also responsible for bringing the knife used to stab Mrs. Caton and Mr. Freiri. Defendant knew his intended victims were elderly and that Mr. Freiri was partially paralyzed, and so he could not have believed he and Cullumber, both younger men, needed the knife to commit the robberies. Therefore, defendant intended to kill, and not just rob, Mrs. Caton and Mr. Freiri. Moreover, defendant knew he could not escape justice if Mr. Freiri were left alive. Defendant had gained entry by saying he needed to use the phone because Cullumber was going to jail. Even if Mr. Freiri did not recognize defendant, he must have known Cullumber, who was an almost daily visitor to his grandmother's home. Mr. Freiri would have led the police to Cullumber, and Cullumber would have led them to defendant.