WPCF  q)rݴ)r" =I<vrzX4rp uz`4wL 'Ufp8VZGhX׉ ۳ZL+q|-P9pu Bgێ5$Mmt\>A}݆-7ʠQ`~yRb grf XߴSBm˯۵7~PKϕo;Q0_JnKUộ(nTa>:lE`831/ \*Jn&H)&=5в$ݳ݆ 1[[1Fީ+VO+r mwT0CdoFA:nQ;dʢFDsr+սՓ?;rO u{aq2xI:c-u0թ׏hSb XMYo'yq!P6bJO7 ;'F~͇_#UN %) 0Y/Nw@UF4$3 m5 09cL 1u 72$ 0ZwV 0? 0W 0 0 0r 0M 0D< 1 72  0U; 0 0s 08 0 0 0c 0 0 0X! 0" 0" 0# 0N$ 0$ 0% 01& 0& 0S' 0( 0( 0) 0=* 0* 0+ 0, 0, 03- 0- 0. 0>a/ 0/ 00 0y1 0[2 0=3 04 05 05 026 06 0:7 0Y7 0_N8 0 8 09 09; B*?= D/i= D+= 0= D/? 0? 06@ 0@ 0:B 0^>B 0<B 1eBU6=CU>sCU*C 0uC D5PD BDDDDbDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD^ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 0uDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD AS+E~E 0DDFhp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS., E EUDUUD*~ZZ.GoudyHandtooled BT j::i+003|x U(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xEGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7J(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dH)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7J(X75+ ` hp x 5  H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(M3"$ !XXUSUS.,  YYYY)!dxdx d- -u1= (M3"$ !XXUSUS.,  WXE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !KXXUSUS.,  _ K  L0J]8Kdd8CALIFORNIAHOMICIDELAW  INTHENEWMILLENNIUM#JL0֊# f Noteworthyhomicideopinionsofthepastdecade#T##K_#   ~   KPreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell 8  AssistantDirector,FirstDistrictAppellateProject \  September2010#K 7#    +XK(#(#K(##KX0#XK   FIRSTDEGREEFELONYMURDER     (Ey3 " 3"   3r2E3  0    Relationshipbetweenhomicideandpredicatefelony!juryquestion. 3r݌. (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;n0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Sakarias(2000)22Cal.4th596.Whetherthehomicide @  occurredduringthesame continuoustransactionasthemurderisa R question,forthejury,notthejudge,undertheSixthAmendment. d (However,trialcourtserroneousremovalofthatquestionfromjury,in &v itsresponsetojurorsquery,washarmless,whereotherverdictsand 8 specialcircumstancefindingsestablishedthatfirstdegreemurder J convictionrestedonpropertheory.);n݌\` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   32E3  0    Nonkillerliabilityand logicalnexusbetweenhomicideandpredicate  felony. 3݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ; 0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Cavitt(2004)33Cal.4th187.Felonymurderonlyrequires  a logicalnexusbetweenthepredicatefelonyandthehomicide.Itis   notnecessarythatthehomicidebecommitted infurtheranceofthe ! felony.; ݌"*` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ; 0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Dominguez(2006)39Cal.4th1141.Failuretodeliver #< CALJIC8.27(definingfelonyliabilityofnonkillerparticipantin $N  felony)washarmless.Underthefacts,therewasnowaythatjurycould &`! havefounddefendantwasaparticipantintherapebutthatthehomicide "'r" didntoccurincourseoftherapeforfelonymurderpurposes.; ݌4(#` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3 2E3  0    Lesserincludedinstructionsonpredicatefelony!onlyiffelonyseparately X*%! charged. 3 8݌j+&"(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;-0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Kelly(2007)42Cal.4th763.Adefendantisentitledto  instructionsonalesserincludedoffenseofafelonymurderpredicate  felony(e.g.,theftasLIOofrobbery)onlyifthepredicatefelonyis $ chargedasaseparatecountinitsownright.;-Z݌6` (#` (# Ќ  SECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDER   Z " 3"   3v2E3  0    Constitutionalityofdoctrineupheld. 3v݌0 (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;Q0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Chun(2009)45Cal.4th1172.Contrarytonumerousprior B  opinionsdescribingseconddegreemurderasanonstatutory judicially T  createddoctrine,CaliforniaSupremeCourtinChunconcludedthat f  therewasastatutorybasis.19thcenturycriminalstatuteseffectively x  codifiedcommonlawfelonymurder.Commissionofaninherently   dangerousfelonyresultingindeathisanalternativeformofimplied   malicecomingwithin#KX0#Pen.CodeXK188( abandonedandmalignant  heart).;Q~݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   32E3  0    Predicatefelonymustbeinherentlydangerousinabstract. 33݌4(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Howard(2005)34Cal.4th1129.Vehicularflightfrompolice F pursuitwithwantondisregardforsafetyofpersonsorproperty(Veh. X Code2800.2)isnotavalidbasisforfelonymurder.Thereareways j ofcommittingthepredicatetrafficviolationsfora2800.2conviction ,| whicharenotinherentlydangerousintheabstract.;#݌>` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3m2E3  0    Evolutionofthemergerdoctrine!Robertson,RandleandChun. 3m݌b(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;v0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Robertson(2004)34Cal.4th156.InRobertson,theSupreme t Courtfoundthatnegligentdischargeofafirearm(Pen.Code246.3)   couldserveasafelonymurderpredicate,wherethedefendantfiredwith ! a collateralpurposeoffrighteningthevictims.Insoholding, " however,theCourtseeminglyrevivedamergertestwhichithad #  disapprovedinPeoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300(thecasewhich $  hadupheldsubmissionofPen.Code246(firingatinhabiteddwelling) %0! asafelonymurderpredicate)..;v݌&B" ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Randle(2005)35Cal.4th987.However,justmonthslater,in (T#! anothercaseinvolving246.3,theCourtemployedasimilar collateral )f$" purposeanalysisbutreachedtheoppositeresult.BecauseRandle (*x%# admittedlyfired atthevictim,hedidnothaveany collateralpurpose :+&$ _ beyondassault.Accordingly,becausethefirearmdischargefelonywas  reallyanassault,it mergedwiththehomicideandcouldnotserveas  afelonymurderpredicateunderIreland.;݌$` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;>!0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Chun(2009)45Cal.4th1172.InChun,theCourtrecognized 6 theanomaliesandinconsistenciesemergingoutofitsmergercases.The H CourtoverruledbothHansen(re246)andRobertson(re246.3)and  Z alsodisapprovedthereasoning,butnottheresult,inRandle.TheCourt  l abandonedthe collateralpurposetestbecause(amongotherproblems) . ~ itseemedtorequireacasebycasefactualdetermination.Returningto @  theoriginalreasoningunderlyingIreland,theCourtconcludedthatthe R  mergerdoctrinebarreduseoffelonyassaultoranyother assaultive d  felony,including246or246.3.;>!k!݌v ` (#` (# Ќ  SECONDDEGREEMURDER!IMPLIEDMALICE.    " 3"   3%2E3  0    Impliedmalicestandard. 3%%݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;\&0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Knoller(2007)41Cal.4th139(a.k.a., thedogcase). " Impliedmalicerequiresconsciousdisregardofdangertohumanlife. 4 Awarenessofriskofgreatbodilyinjuryisnotsufficient.However,its F notnecessarytofindawarenessofa highprobabilityconductwill X causedeath.;\&&݌j` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3(2E3  0    Failuretoactinsufficientbasisforimpliedmalice. 3((݌>(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;)0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Whisenhunt(2006)44Cal.4th174.A failuretoact(e.g.,a P failuretoobtainmedicalassistanceforaninjuredvictim)doesnot on b itsown,constituteanintentionalactforimpliedmalicemurder.;))݌t` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3+2E3  0    Deathoffetus. 3++݌!(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;K,0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Taylor(2004)32Cal.4th863.Defendantshotandkilledhis " exgirlfriend,apparentlyunawarethatshewas1113weekspregnant. #  Inadditiontohisfirstdegreemurderconvictionfordeathofthemother, $  defendantcouldbeliableforseconddegreemurderofthefetus,onan %0! impliedmalicetheory,despitehislackofknowledgeofthepregnancy. &B"  Ѐ Inbatteringandshooting[hisexgirlfriend],defendantactedwith (T#! knowledgeofthedangertoandconsciousdisregardforlifeingeneral. )f$" Thatisallthatisrequiredforimpliedmalicemurder.Hedidnotneed (*x%# tobespecificallyawarehowmanypotentialvictimshisconscious :+&$ disregardforlifeendangered.;K,x,݌` (#` (# Ќ  ATTENUATEDTHEORIESOFMURDERLIABILITY! $ AIDING/ABETTING,NATURALANDPROBABLECONSEQUENCES,ETC.  8 " 3 "   3 12E3  0    Traditionalaiding/abetting(notinvolvingnaturalandprobableconsequences  ^ doctrine).Directorperpetratorandaidersdifferentlevelsofculpability. 3 191݌ p(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;s20  2E3  0` (#(#  Aider/abettormaybeguiltyofgreaterdegreeofoffensethandirect 2  perpetrator.;s22݌D ` (#` (# Ќ  " "  30  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev.McCoy(2001)25Cal.4th1111.Aiderslevelofguilt V  dependsuponownlevelofculpability.Wheremultiple h  participantsareinvolvedjointlyincommittingorcausinga z  killing theindividualmentesreaeorlevelsofguiltofthejoint   participantsarepermittedtofloatfreeandarenottiedtoeach   otherinanyway.(QuotingDresslertreatise.)Consequently,an  aider/abettorcanbeguiltyofgreaterdegreeofoffensethan  actualperpetrator.E.g.,Aidermaybeguiltyofmurderthough $ actualperpetratorsoffenseislesserduetoheatofpassionor 6 imperfectselfdefense(asinMcCoyopinionsOthelloexample).33݌H (# (# Ќ  "; "  ;70  2E3  0` (#(#  Conversely,aider/abettormaybeguiltyoflesserdegreeofoffensethan  Z directperpetrator.;78݌l` (#` (# Ќ  " "  $90  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev.Nero(2010)181Cal.App.4th504.CALCRIMand .~ CALJICaiding/abettinginstructionsstatingthatallprincipalsare @ equallyguiltyaremisleading.Theyfailtorequirejurorstoassess R aidersdistinctmentalstateandfailtoinformthemofpossibility d thataidermaybeguiltyofgreaterorlesseroffensethandirect v perpetrator.Errorprejudicial,wherejurorscouldhavefoundthat   aider/abettoractedunderprovocationandheatofpassion. @(! $9Q9݌! (# (# Ќ  " 3 "   3Z<2E3  0    Naturalandprobableconsequences. 3Z<<݌#(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;2=0  2E3  0` (#(#  Outerlimitsofdoctrine(sofar):Peoplev.Medina(2009)46Cal.4th $  913.;2=_=݌%2!` (#` (# Ќ  " "  a>0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Undertotalityofevidence,firstdegreemurderandattempted &D"  murderwerenaturalandprobableconsequencesofaiding (V#! abettingsimpleassault(fistfight)onmemberofanothergang, )h$" eventhoughaiderswerentawaretheircompanionwasarmed.a>>݌**z%# (# (# Ќ  " "  u@0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Scenariobeganwith verbalchallengebymembers_ of <+&$ defendantsgroup! Whereareyoufrom?,which,per  testimony,meant Whatgangareyoufrom?u@@݌ (# (# Ќ  " "  8B0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  _ Dispositive_ Ԁquestionis notwhethertheaiderandabettoractually $ foresawtheadditionalcrime,butwhether,judgedobjectively,it 6 wasreasonablyforeseeable.8BeB݌H (# (# Ќ  " "  D0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Giventhegangrelatedpurposeoftheinitialassault...,thejury  Z couldreasonablyhavefoundthatapersonindefendantsposition  l (i.e.,agangmember)wouldhaveorshouldhaveknownthat . ~ retaliationwaslikelytooccurandthatescalationofthe @  confrontationtoadeadlylevelwasreasonablyforeseeable...D?D݌R  (# (# Ќ  "; "  ;F0  2E3  0` (#(#  Aidermaybeguiltyoflessercrimethanactualperpetrator,depending d  onlevelofcrimereasonablyforeseeable.;FF݌v ` (#` (# Ќ  " "  G0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev.Hart(2009)176_ Cal.App_ .4th662.Aiderslevelof   culpabilitydependsuponthe naturalandprobable   consequencesofthetargetcrimewhichthedefendantintended  toaid.E.g.,thoughperpetratorultimatelycommittedattempted  premeditatedmurder,jurymightfoundthatonlyattempted   murder,withoutpremeditation,wasa naturalandprobable 2 consequenceofthecontemplatedtargetcrime.Thestandard D instructionsweredefectiveundercircumstancesbecausetheydid V notrequirejurorstoassesswhetherattemptedpremeditated h murder,asopposedtosimpleattemptedmurder,wasnaturaland *z probableconsequenceofthetargetcrimewhichHartaided.GH݌< (# (# Ќ  " 3 "   3QL2E3  0    Proximatecauseandprovocativeactdoctrine. 3QL~L݌`(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;4M0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Sanchez(2001)26Cal.4th834.Sanchezandamemberofa r rivalgangmemberexchangedgunfire.Astraybulletstruckandkilled   aninnocentbystander.BothSanchezandhisrival(whowastriedasa ! codefendant)wereconvictedoffirstdegreemurder,thoughitwas " impossibletodeterminewhichofthemhadfiredthefatalshot.The #  SupremeCourtaffirmed.Regardlessofwhosebulletstruckthe $  bystander,Sanchezslifethreateningconductwasa substantial %.! concurrent,andhenceproximate,causeofthebystandersdeath. &@"  BecausetheevidencesupportedafindingthatSanchezactedwitha (R#! premeditatedintenttokilltherivalgangmemberandthathe )d$" intentionallyfiredfromavehicle,hewasliableforfirstdegreemurder &*v%# forthebystandersdeath.(Althoughthecasehadbeenbriefed 8+&$ principallyunderthe provocativeactdoctrine,theSupremeCourt  insteadanalyzeditasaproximatecausequestion.);4MaM݌` (#` (# Ќ  "; "  ;R0  2E3  0` (#(#  ButcomparePeoplev.Cervantes(2001)26Cal.4th860(decidedsame $ dayasSanchez).Cervantes,agangmember, perpetratedanonfatal 6 shootingthatquicklyprecipitatedarevengekillingbymembersofan H opposingstreetgang.IncontrasttoSanchez,theSupremeCourtfound  Z thatCervanteswasnotliableformurderunderproximatecauseand  l provocativeactprinciples.Therewasnoevidencethattheactual . ~ perpetratorsofthelatermurderwereevenpresentattheearlierincident @  inwhichCervantesshotarivalgangmember,andCervanteshimself R  wasnotpresentatthescenewhentheperpetratorsshotthevictimin d  revenge. [_ T]he_ Ԁcriticalfactthatdistinguishesthiscasefromother v  provocativeactmurdercases[fn.]isthatheretheactualmurdererswere   notrespondingtodefendantsprovocativeactbyshootingbackathim   oranaccomplice,inthecourseofwhichsomeonewaskilled. The  fatalshotswerefired...insteadatathirdpartywhowasnotapartyto  theinitialprovocativeact.....Thewilfulandmaliciousmurder...atthe   handsofotherswasanindependentinterveningact,suchthatthe 2 evidencewasinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,toestablishproximate D causetoholdCervantesliableforthatmurder.;RR݌V` (#` (# Ќ  "; "  ;Y0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Concha(2009)47Cal.4th653. Provocativeactmurderisnot h anindependentcrimewithafixedlevelofliability,butissimplya *z  shorthandforatypeofcausationscenario.AsinMcCoy(the2001 < caseasdisparatelevelsofculpabilityforperpetratorandaider/abettor), N theCourtemphasizesthat,injointcausationscenarios,therespective ` actorslevelsofguilt arepermittedtofloatfreedependinguponeach r individualsmens_ rea_ .TheSupremeCourtagreesthat,dependingon   facts,aprovocativeactmurdermaysupportfirstdegreemurderliability, ! dependingontheindividual#KX#XKdefendantsmens_ rea_ : Thejurymustfind " thattheindividualdefendantpersonallyactedwilfully,andwith #  deliberationandpremeditationinthecriminalactwhichprovokedthe $  fatalshooting.TheinstructionsinConchaweredefectiveinfailingto %.! communicatethatrequirementofpremeditationonthepartofthe &@"  individualdefendant.;Y,Z݌(R#!` (#` (# Ќ   8+&$  VOLUNTARYMANSLAUGHTER   " 3 "   3`2E3  0    Elements 3``݌&(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;Wa0  2E3  0` (#(#  Intenttokillnotanelement.;Waa݌8` (#` (# Ќ  " "  Eb0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._ Lasko_ (2000)23Cal.4th101(heatofpassion).Ebrb݌J (# (# Ќ  " "  c0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._ Blakely_ (2000)23Cal.4th82(imperfectselfdefense).cc݌ \ (# (# Ќ  " "  d0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Contrarytoearlieropinionsdescribingspecificintenttokillasan  n elementofvoluntarymanslaughter,_ Lasko_ and_ Blakely_ holdthat 0  heatofpassionorimperfectselfdefensewillalsonegateimplied B  malice(consciousdisregardforhumanlife)andreducean T  unintentionalkillingtovoluntarymanslaughter.dd݌f  (# (# Ќ  "; "  ;qg0  2E3  0` (#(#  Heatofpassionand/orimperfectselfdefensenotelementsofoffense x  ofvoluntarymanslaughter.;qgg݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " "  h0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev.Rios(2000)23Cal.4th450.Imperfectselfdefense   and/orheatofpassionnegatemaliceandreduceanoffensewhich  wouldotherwisebemurdertovoluntarymanslaughter.However,  thesemalicenegatinggroundsarenotelementsofoffenseof " voluntarymanslaughter,andprosecutionisnotrequiredtoprove 4 eithercircumstanceinatrial(orretrial)forvoluntary F manslaughter.hh݌X (# (# Ќ  " 3 "   3k2E3  0    Imperfectselfdefense 3kk݌,|(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;hl0  2E3  0` (#(#  Imperfectdefenseofanother.;hll݌>` (#` (# Ќ  ""  Om0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._ Randle_ (2005)35Cal.4th987.TheFlannel/Christian P S.imperfectselfdefensedoctrineappliesequallytoactualbut b unreasonablebeliefinneedtousedeadlyforceindefenseof t someoneelse.Refusalofimperfectdefenseinstructions   prejudicial,whereevidencecouldhavesupportedfindingthat ! _ Randle_ Ԁfiredinunreasonablebeliefinnecessitytoprotecthis " youngercousin,whowasbeingbeatenafterbeingcaughttrying #  toburglarizeacar.Om|m݌$  (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;p0  2E3  0` (#(#  _ CALCRIM_ Ԁinstructionaldefects.;pp݌%0!` (#` (# Ќ  ""  q0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev.Her(2009)181_ Cal.App_ .4th349,identifiesadefectin &B"  theimperfectselfdefenseinstructionsforreducingattempted (T#! murdertoattemptedvoluntarymanslaughter.Theimperfectself )f$" defenseinstructionforanactualkilling(_ CALCRIM_ Ԁ571) (*x%# correctlyrequireseitheranunreasonablebeliefinimminent :+&$ dangerofdeathorgreatbodilyinjuryoranunreasonablebelief  thatimmediateuseofdeadlyforcewasnecessary.( Atleastone  ofthosebeliefswasunreasonable.)Butthecounterpart $ instructionforanattemptedkilling,_ CALCRIM_ Ԁ604,erroneously 6 indicatesthat imperfectselfdefenseexistsonlyifbothofthe H defendantsbeliefswereunreasonable.qr݌ Z (# (# Ќ  " 3"   3v2E3  0    Heatofpassion. 3vv݌. ~(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;_w0  2E3  0` (#(#  Sufficiencyofprovocation.;_ww݌@ ` (#` (# Ќ  ""  Dx0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._ Moye_ (2009)47Cal.4th537.Neitherafightthe R  previouseveningnorthevictimsactofkickingthedefendants d  carthefollowingmorningconstitutedsufficientprovocationto v  warrantheatofpassioninstructions.Dxqx݌  (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;lz0  2E3  0` (#(#  Provocationstandard!ordinarypersonwouldactrashly,etc.,notthat   ordinarypersonwouldkill.;lzz݌` (#` (# Ќ  ""  {0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._ Najera_ (2006)138_ Cal.App_ .4th212.Contraryto  commonprosecutorialargument,heatofpassionmanslaughter   doesnotrequirefindingthattheprovocationwouldcausean 2 ordinarypersontokill!butonlythatitwouldcauseanordinary D persontoactrashlyandwithoutjudgment. UXXThefocusisonthe V provocation!thesurroundingcircumstances!andwhetheritwas h sufficienttocauseareasonablepersontoactrashly.Howthe *z killerrespondedtotheprovocationandthereasonablenessofthe < responseisnotrelevanttosuddenquarrelorheatofpassion.{{݌N (# (# Ќ  INVOLUNTARYMANSLAUGHTER  r " 3"   3!2E3  0    Misdemeanormanslaughter. 3!N݌!(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Cox(2000)23#XUX~##KX\#Cal.4thUXXUXUK665.Underthe misdemeanor " manslaughterrule(homicideresultingfromunlawfulactnotamounting #  tofelony,#XUX##KX<#Pen.CodeUXXUXUK192(b)),thetestisnotwhetherthepredicate $  misdemeanorisinherentlydangerousintheabstract,butwhetheritwas %0! dangerousunderthecircumstances.Trialcourterredininstructingthat &B"  misdemeanorbatterywasinherentlydangerousasamatteroflaw.;݌(T#!` (#` (# Ќ   +&$  ATTEMPTEDMURDER   #XUX0#" 3"   3i2E3  0    Transferrredintent,concurrentintentandthe killzonetheory. 3i݌&(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;q0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Bland(2002)28Cal.4th313.Blandaddressedthepossible 8 attemptedmurderliabilityofadefendantwhointendstokillaparticular J person,butalsoendangersothers,suchaswhereadefendantfiresata  \ groupofpeople,intendingtokillaspecificvictim.;q݌ n` (#` (# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Transferredintentinapplicabletoattemptedmurder.Incontrast 0  tomurderitself,theconceptof transferredintentdoesnotapply B  totheinchoatecrimeofattemptedmurder.However, theperson T  mightstillbeguiltyofattemptedmurderofeveryoneinthe f  group,althoughnotonatransferredintenttheory.݌x  (# (# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  The killzonetheory.Evenwhenadefendant primarily   intendstokillaspecificperson,hemayalsohavea concurrent   intenttokillothersinthe zoneofharmcreatedbyhisattack.   [_ T]UXXhe_ Ԁfactthepersondesirestokillaparticulartargetdoesnot  precludefindingthatthepersonalso,concurrently,intendedto " killotherswithinwhat[anoutofstatecourt]termedthe#XUX׌#UXX #XUX #UXXkill 4 zone.#XUXS#UXX #XUX#UXXWherethemeansemployedtocommitthecrimeagainst F aprimaryvictimcreateazoneofharmaroundthatvictim,the X _ factfinder_ Ԁcanreasonablyinferthatthedefendantintendedthat j harmtoallwhoareintheanticipatedzone.;݌,| (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2E3  0` (#(#  TheSupremeCourtrevisitedthe killzonetheoryin#XUX#UXX#UKUXk#UXUKPeoplev.Stone > (2009)46#XUX#Cal.4th131:;֐݌P` (#` (# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  The killzonetheory addresses...whetheradefendantcharged b withthemurderorattemptedmurderofanintendedtargetcan t alsobeconvictedofattemptingtomurderother,_ nontargeted_    persons.Butthattheory simplydoesnotfitascenariowhere ! thedefendantisnottargetingaspecificvictim,butfiresata " groupofpeoplewiththemoregenericintentofkilling #   someone.ݒ݌$  (# (# Ќ  ""  ƕ0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Butthedefendantmaystillbeconvictedofattemptedmurder, %0! basedonageneralizedintenttokill,suchaswhereaterrorist &B"  placesabombonaplane. Anindiscriminatewouldbekiller (T#! isjustasculpableasonewhotargetsaspecificperson. The )f$" mentalstaterequiredforattemptedmurderistheintenttokilla (*x%# humanbeing,notaparticularhumanbeing.,ƕ݌:+&$ (# (# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2E3  0 ` (#` (#  Stonealsoidentifiedtwodefectsin_ CALCRIM_ soriginal kill  zonepatterninstruction,_ CALCRIM_ Ԁ600.Ratherthanreferto   anintenttokillanyone,theinstructionshouldrequirean $ intenttokill everyoneinthekillzone.Second,initsoriginal 6 form,thefinalsentenceofonesentenceof_ CALCRIM_ Ԁ600referredto anintentto H harmeveryoneinthekillzone,ratherthantokilleveryoneinthe  Z zone.(_ CALCRIM_ ԀhassubsequentlyrevisedNo.600onboth  l points(substituting everyonefor anyoneand killfor . ~  harm).)݌@  (# (# Ќ  " 3"   3-2E3  0    Numberofattemptedmurderconvictions. 3-Z݌d (#(# Ќ  ";"  ; 0  2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Perez(2010)50Cal.4th222.Althoughagenericintenttokill v  someonewillsufficeforattemptedmurderliability,thefiringofasingle   shotwiththatintentwillsupportonlyonesuchconviction. [_ W]here_    theshooterindiscriminatelyfiresasingleshotatagroupofpersonswith  specificintenttokillsomeone,butwithouttargetinganyparticular  individualorindividuals,heisguiltyofasinglecountofattempted   murder.(Perezhadbeenconvictedofeightcountsofattemptedmurder 2 forfiringasingleshotatagroupofpoliceofficers;theSupremeCourt D letonecountstandandreversedtheothers.)#KX#; 7݌V` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;ş0  2E3  0` (#(#  XK;ş݌  ` (#` (# Ќ  #KXx#