The Court of Appeal held that the trial court gave an erroneous kill zone instruction because it did not require the jury to find, as is required for application of the kill zone theory, that appellant intended to kill everyone in the area around the primary target as a means of killing that primary target. Nor did the instruction enumerate the circumstances the jury should consider in assess a defendant’s intent to create a zone of fatal harm and the scope of that zone. The court further held that the error was prejudicial even under the less stringent Watson standard, and that one of appellant’s attempted murder convictions must be vacated as a result.