Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

defendanttrialfelonyjury instructions
defendanttrialfelony

Related Cases

People v. Barnett, 17 Cal.4th 1044, 954 P.2d 384, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3314, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4582
View Case »
People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229, 939 P.2d 259, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5537, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8941, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9003
View Case »
People v. Horn, 279 Mich.App. 31, 755 N.W.2d 212
View Case »
People v. Hannon, 19 Cal.3d 588, 564 P.2d 1203, 138 Cal.Rptr. 885
View Case »
Batson v. State, 113 Nev. 669, 941 P.2d 478
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Boyd, 38 Cal.3d 762, 700 P.2d 782, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1

Facts

On November 10, 1979, David Edsill was shot and killed by defendant Timothy Casey during an attempted robbery. After a night of drinking, Casey and his companions encountered Edsill, who was looking for directions. Casey asked Edsill for money, and when Edsill claimed he had none, Casey shot him in the chest. Edsill died shortly after, and Casey later boasted about the shooting to a friend. The defense argued that Casey was under the influence of PCP, which impaired his judgment and led to an impulsive act rather than a premeditated murder.

Defendant took hold of Edsill's shirt and asked again, 'Do you have some money?' Edsill again said he did not. Defendant then drew a gun, pointed it at Edsill's head, and said, 'I'm going to ask you again, do you have any money?' Edsill pushed the gun away from his head. Defendant stepped back, lowered the gun, and shot Edsill in the chest.

Issue

Did the trial court err in failing to instruct the jury on intent to kill as an essential element of felony-murder special circumstances, and did this error warrant a reversal of the conviction?

The trial court's failure to instruct on intent to kill as essential element of felony-murder special circumstances was reversible error.

Rule

The court held that proof of intent to kill or to aid a killing is essential to a finding of felony-murder special circumstances under the 1978 death penalty initiative.

Proof of intent to kill or to aid a killing was essential to a finding of felony-murder special circumstances under the 1978 death penalty initiative.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence presented at trial supported the conclusion that Casey intended to kill Edsill, as he shot him at close range and fired additional shots as Edsill attempted to flee. However, the court also noted that the jury was not properly instructed on the necessity of finding intent to kill for the felony-murder special circumstances, which constituted reversible error.

The way in which defendant killed Edsill suggests that defendant intended the killing. Defendant shot Edsill in the heart from a distance of a few feet, then fired five more shots when Edsill tried to escape.

Conclusion

The court reversed the special circumstance finding due to the instructional error regarding intent to kill, while affirming other aspects of the conviction.

Our reversal of the special circumstance finding renders it unnecessary to reach the issues raised in connection with the penalty phase of the trial.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendant, Timothy Casey, in that the court reversed the special circumstance finding due to the trial court's error in jury instructions.

The court erred in not instructing the jury that intent to kill was an essential element of a finding of special circumstances based on a murder during an attempted robbery.

You must be