The PEOPLE v. Jarmaal Laronde SMITH

Supreme Court of California
37 Cal.4th 733, 124 P.3d 730 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant who fires a single bullet at two victims who are aligned in the direct line of fire can be convicted of two counts of attempted murder if a rational jury could infer from the circumstances that the defendant possessed a specific intent to kill both victims.

Facts:

Karen A. was driving her car with her three-month-old baby, Renell T., Jr., who was secured in a rear-facing infant car seat in the backseat directly behind her.
Defendant, a former friend of Karen A., approached the parked car, looked inside, and made a hostile comment to Karen A.
An altercation occurred between defendant and Karen A.'s boyfriend, Renell X, Sr., during which defendant displayed a handgun tucked in his waistband.
As Karen A. started to drive away, she looked in her rearview mirror and saw defendant standing directly behind the car holding a gun.
Defendant fired a single .38-caliber bullet into the vehicle from approximately one car length away.
The bullet shattered the rear windshield, passed through the driver's headrest, and lodged in the driver's side door, narrowly missing both Karen A. and her baby.
According to defendant's own testimony, he saw the baby in the backseat of the car before the shooting.

Procedural Posture:

Defendant was charged by information in the trial court with the attempted murders of Karen A. and her baby, among other offenses.
A jury convicted defendant on all counts.
The trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent 27-year state prison terms for the two attempted murder convictions.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for the attempted murder of the baby.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review.

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 firing a single bullet into a vehicle containing two individuals, one seated directly behind the other and both in the shooter's direct line of fire, provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of specific intent to kill both individuals for two separate attempted murder convictions?

Opinions:

Majority - Baxter, J.

Yes. Firing a single bullet at two victims aligned in the shooter's line of fire can support two convictions for attempted murder. Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill (express malice), and this intent can be inferred from the defendant's acts and the circumstances of the crime. The act of purposefully discharging a lethal firearm at close range at victims who are both known to be in the line of fire gives rise to an inference that the shooter acted with express malice toward both. While motive is probative, it is not a required element, so the presence of animus toward one victim does not preclude a finding of intent to kill another victim who is also targeted. The fact that only one bullet was fired does not, as a matter of law, negate the inference of intent to kill both victims.

Dissenting - Werdegar, J.

No. The evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to kill the baby. The majority's reasoning improperly blurs the critical distinction between express malice (specific intent to kill), which is required for attempted murder, and implied malice (conscious disregard for life). While the defendant's action of firing in the baby's direction demonstrated a reckless and life-endangering disregard for the baby's life, it does not, by itself, prove the specific intent to kill him. Given that the defendant had a demonstrated animosity toward the mother and none toward the baby, the firing of a single shot only supports an inference of intent to kill the mother. Permitting a conviction on these facts effectively allows knowing endangerment to substitute for express malice, contrary to established legal principles.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that multiple attempted murder convictions can arise from a single act without invoking the 'kill zone' theory, which typically involves overwhelming force. The ruling establishes that a defendant's knowledge of multiple victims' presence in the direct line of fire is a crucial factor from which a jury can infer concurrent specific intent to kill each of them. This precedent allows prosecutors to pursue multiple attempted murder charges in single-shot scenarios where victims are aligned, shifting the focus from the quantity of force used to the defendant's awareness and the specific geometry of the attack. It potentially lowers the evidentiary threshold compared to the 'kill zone' doctrine by grounding the finding of intent in the specific targeting of aligned victims rather than an indiscriminate attack on an area.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: The PEOPLE v. Jarmaal Laronde SMITH (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature