Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealtrialwilldeliberationlife imprisonment

defendantappealwilldeliberation

Related Cases

People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 74 P.3d 176, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7310, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9124

Facts

In 1995, violent confrontations occurred in Fresno between rival Hmong gangs, MOD and USC. Defendants Lee and Xiong, aged 14 and 15, were charged with two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder, with allegations of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation. The jury found Lee guilty of murder and attempted murder, while Xiong was found guilty of both murders and all attempted murders. The trial court dismissed allegations of personal infliction of great bodily injury due to insufficient evidence.

This case arises from violent confrontations in the City of Fresno in 1995 between rival Hmong gangs, the Men or Menace of Destruction (MOD) and the Unstoppable or Unseen Criminals (USC). Defendants Phia Lee and Johnson Xiong, who were MOD members or associates and were 14 and 15 years of age, respectively, were charged with two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder.

Issue

Does section 664(a) require that an attempted murderer personally acted willfully and with deliberation and premeditation if guilty as an aider and abettor?

The first issue involves the proper interpretation of section 664(a): Does section 664(a) require that an attempted murderer personally acted willfully and with deliberation and premeditation if he or she is guilty as an aider and abettor?

Rule

Section 664(a) provides that if the attempted murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, the person guilty of that attempt shall be punished by imprisonment for life, without requiring personal willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation.

Subdivision (a) of section 664 of the Penal Code (section 664(a)) provides that, as a general matter, a person guilty of attempted murder must be punished by imprisonment for five, seven, or nine years. It goes on to provide, however, that, “if the [murder] attempted is willful, deliberate, and premeditated …, the person guilty of that attempt shall be punished by imprisonment … for life….

Analysis

The court interpreted section 664(a) to mean that it only requires the murder attempted to be willful, deliberate, and premeditated, not that the attempted murderer personally acted with those mental states. The court noted that the statute does not distinguish between direct perpetrators and aiders and abettors, and thus, a person guilty as an aider and abettor can still be punished with life imprisonment if the attempted murder meets the criteria.

As we shall explain, we conclude that section 664(a) properly must be interpreted to require only that the murder attempted was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, but not to require that an attempted murderer personally acted willfully and with deliberation and premeditation, even if he or she is guilty as an aider and abettor.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that section 664(a) does not require personal willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation for an attempted murderer who is guilty as an aider and abettor.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.

Who won?

The People (State of California) prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and clarified the interpretation of section 664(a).

We granted review in the present case limited to two issues entirely distinct from the question in Bright.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392

Toshiba America Electronic Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 762, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,661, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,401

Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740

Jenkins v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2776478