 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
People v Guerra
S. Ct. California, 1985
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: Df was employed by a security firm to work the graveyard shift. He approached another guard who was on duty and requested who and were his partner M was. After receiving the information Df left. Df later returned in the partners car, with the partner inside the trunk. Df, with a sawed off shotgun and wearing rubber gloves, asked B to hand over his guns and to sit on the floor of the car. Df drove off, stopped at a house and requested Quesada to follow. Df took M and B out of the car, saying he wasn’t going to hurt them, but the gun went off twice. Mesa was dead. Birk struggled with Df. Df asked Q to assist but Q ran off, and Birk escaped.
Issue: Whether the jury instructions were adequate for a finding of attempted murder conviction?
Holding: No.
Procedure: Trial court conviction of attempted murder, murder, kidnapping, robbery. Att. Murder is reversed.
Rule: An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements; specific intent to commit the crime; direct but ineffectual act done toward it commission.
Ct Rationale: THE crime of attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill a mental state coincident with express malice. The jury was instructed that if Df intentionally committed an act which, were the victim to die, would constitute murder on an implied malice or felony murder theory which is inadequate. The instruction should have been rendered on the specific intent to kill rather than implied malice.
PL A: Df intended to kill, he kidnapped, restrained, aimed a loaded shotgun at the deceased and victim, shot one victim and with intended to kill the other, but if not for the escape would have.
Def A: Df did not intend to kill Birk or Mesa, the gun accidentally went off as he exited the vehicle, and then again as he struggled with Birk.