Opinion ID: 1115651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: special circumstance finding

Text: The jury found that defendant killed Joseph Mossa while committing robbery, thereby constituting a felony-murder special circumstance. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i).) In Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 [197 Cal. Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862], we held that such a finding must be supported by proof that the defendant intended to kill, and that the jury must be instructed on the question of such intent. Defendant seeks reversal of the special circumstance finding on the ground that no such instructions were given in this case. In People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539 [205 Cal. Rptr. 265, 684 P.2d 826], we held Carlos retroactive to all cases not yet final. We also established four exceptions to the Carlos rule which would permit affirming a felony-murder special circumstance in spite of a failure to instruct regarding intent to kill. [4] The People concede that two of the four exceptions are inapplicable. The court's failure to instruct on intent to kill did not arise `in connection with an offense for which the defendant was acquitted ...' nor was that failure unrelated to the offense for which he was convicted. ( Garcia, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 554, quoting Connecticut v. Johnson (1983) 460 U.S. 73 [74 L.Ed.2d 823, 103 S.Ct. 969].) Second, defendant did not concede the question of intent to kill. ( Ibid. ) The People assert that the remaining exceptions, known as the Sedeno and Cantrell-Thornton exceptions, do apply. Under the Sedeno exception, named for our decision in People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703 [112 Cal. Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913], the special circumstance finding may be sustained where the question of intent to kill `was necessarily resolved adversely to the defendant under other, properly given instructions.' ( Garcia, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 555, quoting Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 721.) (6) The People argue that the jury must have found intent to kill because they were instructed that the special circumstance could not be found true if the murder was merely incidental to the robbery rather than committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crime of robbery. We rejected this contention in People v. Whitt, supra, 36 Cal.3d 724, 736. The People attempt to distinguish Whitt by noting that some evidence there indicated that the killing may have been a reflexive reaction to the victim's movements while no such evidence appears here. Such a distinction is unavailing because evidence here suggests that Mossa was shot as he attempted to escape. We conclude that this case is indistinguishable from Whitt for purposes of applying the Sedeno exception. In addition, we observe that the prosecutor argued to the jury that defendant was guilty of felony murder and cautioned the jurors not to become caught up in the instructions pertinent to premeditated murder. [5] Clearly then, the jury's finding of first degree murder did not necessarily imply a finding of intent to kill. (7) Nor does the Cantrell-Thornton exception apply here. Under that exception, named for our decisions in People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672 [105 Cal. Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256], and People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738 [114 Cal. Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267], a felony-murder special circumstance finding may be affirmed despite Carlos error where (1) the parties recognized that intent to kill was in issue, (2) they presented all evidence at their command on the issue, (3) the record shows intent to kill as a matter of law, and (4) the contrary evidence is not worthy of consideration. ( Garcia, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 556.) The People contend that each of these criteria is met and that the special circumstance may be affirmed. We disagree. Here, defendant presented a diminished capacity defense based on his intoxication and supported by expert testimony regarding his inability to form the requisite intent to kill. In the face of such substantial contrary evidence, we cannot say that the record shows that defendant possessed such intent as a matter of law or that defendant's own evidence was not worthy of consideration. We conclude that the Cantrell-Thornton criteria were not satisfied here.