 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kozlowski3/4/2002
ed a related claim. (See pt. II.B., ante.) We do not find this claim of error to be persuasive, either.
Kozlowski and Gatson rely on language in Ibrahim suggesting that in cases in which there is no secondary victim, the distinction between kidnapping for robbery and kidnapping for extortion is too subtle to warrant such different punishments-life imprisonment with possibility of parole for the former and life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the latter. (People v. Ibrahim, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1698-1699.) In dicta, Ibrahim called on the Legislature to reconsider its sentencing laws. However, that decision does not stand for the proposition that former section 209, subdivision (a) is ambiguous or violates due process. We are satisfied that the former kidnapping for extortion statute applied in this case was unambiguous and did provide Kozlowski and Gatson with sufficient notice of the conduct it intended to prohibit.
III. ATTEMPTED MURDER
Kozlowski and Gatson also challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support their convictions for attempted murder. They argue that the evidence does not reliably establish premeditation and deliberation. Thus, they reason that their convictions violate due process. (See U.S. Const., 5th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) Before trial, both defendants unsuccessfully sought to set aside the premeditation allegations of the attempted murder charges filed in the information. (See § 995.)
The law of premeditation and deliberation is well settled. At trial, the People bear the burden of proving premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempt to kill was the result of premeditation and deliberation. (See People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 25; People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, 9.) However, on appeal, we need not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempted murder was premeditated and deliberated. Our inquiry is limited to whether any rational trier of fact could have found these essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, on this record. (See People v. Sanchez (1995) 12 Cal.4th 1, 31-32, cert. den. sub nom. Sanchez v. California (1996) 519 U.S. 835.) The elements of premeditation and deliberation may be shown by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 25.) On appeal from a conviction, we must determine whether the proof furnishes a reasonable foundation for an inference of premeditation and deliberation or whether it leaves only to conjecture and surmise the conclusion that the defendant intended to kill as the result of deliberation and premeditation. (Ibid.)
The reflection necessary to establish premeditation and deliberation is not measured by duration of time. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly. The mere fact that the defendant may have had little time to deliberate does not require a conclusion that he or she could not have done so. (People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 593.) Premeditation means "thought of beforehand" for any length of time, however short. (In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 245; see Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1983) p. 1062, col. 2.)
The type of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation falls into three basic categories. The first category is evidence of planning activity-facts about how and what the defendant did before the attempted killing showing that the defendant engaged in activity directed toward and intended to result in the killing. The second category is facts about the defendant's previous relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|