People v. Bland
28 Cal. 4th 313, 48 P.3d 1107, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of transferred intent applies to an unintended homicide victim even when the intended target is also killed. However, the doctrine does not apply to the inchoate crime of attempted murder; guilt for attempted murder of a non-targeted victim depends on whether the defendant had a concurrent intent to kill those within a 'kill zone.'
Facts:
- Defendant Bland, a member of the Insane Crips gang, and another man confronted Kenneth Wilson, a member of the rival Rolling 20's Crips.
- Wilson was driving a car with two passengers, Skylar Morgan and Leon Simon, who were not gang members.
- Bland asked Wilson to confirm his identity as 'Kebo' from the rival gang.
- Wilson stated he would drop off his non-gang member passengers and return to talk.
- As Wilson began to drive away, Bland approached the driver's side of the car, said, 'So you Kebo from 20’s,' and began shooting into the vehicle with a handgun.
- Bland's companion also fired at the car as it fled.
- Wilson was struck by a bullet and died. Morgan and Simon were both shot and wounded but survived.
- It was not clear from the evidence which shooter fired the specific bullets that struck Wilson, Morgan, or Simon.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a California superior court (trial court) convicted defendant Bland of the first-degree murder of Kenneth Wilson and the premeditated attempted murders of Leon Simon and Skylar Morgan.
- The jury also found true sentence enhancement allegations that Bland personally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury or death.
- Bland (appellant) appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the two attempted murder convictions, holding that the trial court's instruction on transferred intent was erroneous.
- The Court of Appeal also reversed the sentence enhancement, finding prejudicial error in the trial court's failure to define 'proximate causation' for the jury.
- The Attorney General (petitioner) sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply to a charge of attempted murder when a defendant, intending to kill one person, shoots at a group and injures but does not kill others?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No, the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to the inchoate crime of attempted murder. To be guilty of attempted murder, a defendant must have the specific intent to kill the alleged victim, not someone else. The court reasoned that unlike a completed murder, where the harm of a death has occurred, the crime of attempt punishes the defendant's specific mental state regarding an unaccomplished act. Applying transferred intent to attempted murder would improperly create liability for unintended and unaccomplished consequences, and it would be difficult to rationally determine which of many unintended bystanders were victims. However, the court introduced the 'kill zone' theory, explaining that a defendant who uses a method of attack designed to kill everyone in a particular area to ensure the death of a primary target can be found to have a concurrent, rather than transferred, intent to kill everyone in that zone. While the trial court erred by giving a transferred intent instruction that could be misapplied to the attempted murder charges, the error was harmless because the evidence of Bland firing a flurry of bullets into the car strongly supported a finding of concurrent intent under the 'kill zone' theory. The court also held that the failure to define 'proximate cause' for the sentencing enhancement was harmless error because the correct legal definition is broader than a layperson's understanding, so the omission could not have prejudiced the defendant.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply, and the trial court's instructional errors were prejudicial, requiring reversal of the attempted murder convictions. The dissent argued that the prosecutor explicitly and repeatedly urged the jury to apply the transferred intent doctrine to the attempted murder charges. The jury's subsequent question about whether premeditation could 'follow over' from the murder count to the attempted murder count demonstrated their confusion and likely application of the erroneous theory. The trial court's response, which referred the jury back to the transferred intent instruction, compounded the error. The dissent concluded this was not harmless because the evidence did not compel a 'kill zone' finding, as Bland had a clear motive to kill the rival gang member but no established motive to kill his non-gang-affiliated passengers. The failure to define 'proximate cause' was also prejudicial because conflicting evidence about who fired first and whose bullets hit the victims meant a properly instructed jury could have had a reasonable doubt as to whether Bland's actions were the proximate cause of the injuries.
Analysis:
This landmark California decision significantly clarifies the scope of the transferred intent doctrine, explicitly barring its application to attempted murder charges. By doing so, the court prevents the doctrine from creating criminal liability for an inchoate crime against a victim the defendant did not intend to harm. The court's endorsement of the 'kill zone' theory of concurrent intent provides an alternative path for prosecutors in multi-victim cases, shifting the legal inquiry from transferring a mental state to proving the breadth of the defendant's existing intent. This ruling forces prosecutors to prove a defendant intended to kill not just a primary target, but everyone in the vicinity, which will have a lasting impact on how cases involving indiscriminate violence, such as mass shootings or bombings, are charged and argued.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Bland