People v. Van Ronk
1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2455, 171 Cal. App. 3d 818, 217 Cal.Rptr. 581 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter is a legally recognized offense, as the specific intent to kill required for an attempt can coexist with the mitigating circumstances (such as heat of passion) that negate the malice required for murder.
Facts:
- James Gravelle was staying at his sister Ruth's apartment when defendant Joseph Edward Van Ronk telephoned him about acquiring a pound of marijuana.
- The next day, Van Ronk arrived at the apartment, but Gravelle did not yet have the marijuana.
- Van Ronk returned later with a woman named Cindy; during their stay, Van Ronk expressed to Ruth that he believed he was being cheated in the drug deal.
- An argument ensued when Cindy refused to leave with Van Ronk, and Gravelle interjected on Cindy's behalf.
- Van Ronk accused Gravelle of cheating him and then asked him to step outside to fight.
- Gravelle agreed to fight and began walking to the door.
- As Gravelle stood up, Van Ronk pulled out a pistol, said, 'I should kill you,' and shot Gravelle three times.
- Van Ronk then fired shots at Cindy and Ruth, missing both, before demanding money from Cindy and leaving the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- The state charged defendant Joseph Edward Van Ronk with attempted murder in a California trial court.
- A jury convicted Van Ronk of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter.
- The jury also found true the allegations that Van Ronk personally used a firearm and intentionally inflicted great bodily injury.
- The trial court sentenced Van Ronk to a total of six years in prison.
- Van Ronk (appellant) appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the legal validity of the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter.
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 crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter exist in California, or is it a logical and legal impossibility because one cannot plan to act in the heat of passion?
Opinions:
Majority - Sparks, J.
Yes, the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter is a legally recognized offense in California and is not a logical impossibility. An attempt requires a specific intent to commit the target crime and an overt act towards its completion. Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing mitigated by circumstances like a sudden quarrel, heat of passion, or an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, which negates the element of malice aforethought required for murder. The court reasoned that if the law mitigates a completed intentional killing due to these circumstances, there is no logical reason it should not also mitigate an unsuccessful intentional attempt to kill under the same circumstances. The defendant's argument that one cannot 'plan' to act in the heat of passion improperly confuses planning with intent. While one cannot premeditate a spontaneous act, one can form the specific intent to kill while in a state of passion or under an unreasonable belief of self-defense, and this is sufficient for attempted voluntary manslaughter.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal validity of the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter in California, resolving a perceived logical paradox. The decision clarifies that the specific intent required for an attempt crime (the intent to kill) is distinct from the aggravating or mitigating circumstances surrounding that intent. This ensures that a defendant's mental state is accurately reflected in the charge, creating a crucial distinction between a calculated attempted murder and an impulsive, passion-driven attempt to kill. The ruling prevents a legal gap where a less culpable defendant, who would be guilty of manslaughter if the victim died, would otherwise face the same charge (attempted murder) as a defendant who acted with malice aforethought.
