finding that a defendant’s 26 act of entering a house and obtaining a knife from the kitchen was indicative of planning 27 activity
How later courts described this case
- finding that a defendant’s 26 act of entering a house and obtaining a knife from the kitchen was indicative of planning 27 activity
- indicating that the defendant’s conduct after the killing constituted facts that a jury could reasonably consider in relation to the manner of killing
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, “[i]t is elementary . . . that the prosecutor’s argument is not evidence and the theories suggested are not the exclusive theories that may be considered by the jury.”
- noting premeditation and deliberation can occur in brief period of time, and may be inferred from planning activity, motive, and manner of killing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNARD, J., Dissenting.
I agree with Justice Mosk that the evidence in this case is insufficient to support defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree. The facts of this case are not significantly different from those of People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 447 P.2d 942 ], in which this court reversed the defendant’s first degree murder conviction because there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant committed the murder with premeditation and deliberation. As in Anderson , there is no evidence here either of planning or a preexisting motive to kill, and the manner of killing does not suggest the “ ‘careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against’ ” the killing that defines a premeditated and deliberate murder. (Maj. opn., ante, p. 1123.) I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reduced defendant’s conviction from first to second degree murder.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied September 24, 1992. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.