In re A.L.
Filed 3/25/13 In re A.L. CA6
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re A.L., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
H037874
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct.
No. JV36795)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
A. L.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
On December 21, 2011, the
County District Attorney filed an amended wardship petition under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging that A.L. committed
attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187,
664, victim Jane Doe., count one),
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
possessed a weapon on school grounds
(§ 626.20, subd. (a), count two),
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
carried a dirk or dagger concealed on his
person (§ 12020, subd. (a)(4), count three), stalked Jane (§ 646.9, subd.
(a), count four), resisted, delayed or obstructed a police officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1), count five), and attempted to kidnap Jane (§§ 207, subd. (a),
644, count six). The petition contained
allegations that as to the attempted murder count, the stalking count and the
with a knife.
Thereafter,
following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the
juvenile court sustained the 602 petition finding four of the allegations to be
true. Specifically, the court found true
the allegations of attempted murder while armed, possession of a knife on
school grounds, possession of a dirk or dagger, and evading a police
officer. The court found not true the
stalking and attempted kidnapping allegations.
Subsequently,
on January
9, 2012, the court declared
A.L a ward of court, and ordered him removed from the custody of his
parents. The court placed A.L. in the
custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division
of Juvenile Facilities.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]
A.L.
filed a timely notice of appeal.
On
appeal, A.L. challenges as insufficient the evidence to support the true
finding on the attempted murder charge.
Standard of Review
In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a juvenile adjudication,
the standard of review is the same as that applied in reviewing the
a criminal conviction. (In re Sylvester C. (2006) 137
Cal.App.4th 601, 605.) In either case,
"we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to
determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is
reasonable, credible and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact
could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (Ibid., fn. omitted; accord People
v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
We do not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility issues, which are
"the exclusive province of the trier of fact." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th
1149, 1181.) The testimony of a single
witness is sufficient to support a conviction unless it narrates physically
impossible or inherently improbable events.
(Ibid.) We draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the factfinder's conclusions, whether based
on direct or circumstantial evidence. (People
v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)
Nevertheless, a finding is not supported by substantial evidence if it
is based solely on unreasonable inferences, speculation, or conjecture. (In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th
115, 120.)
Testimony Adduced at
the Contested Jurisdiction Hearing
Jane
testified that in the fall of 2008 she sat next to A.L. in biology class. Jane tried to be nice to A.L. and would say
hello in class. Initially, A.L. was shy,
but eventually he began asking her advice about such things as school dances.
Around
March 2009, A.L. started sending Jane MySpace messages in which he pressured
her to meet him after school. Jane did
not feel comfortable spending time with A.L. and so she rejected his
requests. Around the same time, A.L.
asked to be in Jane's group for a project, which required meeting after school.
Towards
the end of the school year, A.L. began following Jane around the school campus
trying to get her attention. On one
particular day while they were walking to class A.L. told Jane that he had
something to tell her; he told her he had an erection. Jane went home and told her mother. Jane thought that it was an odd thing to say
and she became concerned for her safety.
At
the beginning of the summer, A.L. did not try to contact Jane. However, in July, A.L. sent Jane a MySpace
message asking her if she wanted to go with him to the Great America amusement
park. Previously, Jane had been too
afraid to delete A.L. as a MySpace friend, but after receiving this new message
she blocked and deleted his MySpace profile.
Soon thereafter, Jane started getting messages from a MySpace user by
the name of "Lina," who claimed to be A.L's cousin. Lina sent numerous messages to Jane asking
her why she wanted to hurt A.L.; the tone of the messages became increasingly
angry.
Eventually,
Jane realized that Lina's profile was created and controlled by A.L. Jane told "Lina" on MySpace that if
she received another message she would contact the authorities. Jane received a message directly from A.L.'s
MySpace account on August 27, 2009. The message told
her to relax and that everything would be "okay." This message caused Jane to be concerned for
her safety. A.L. tried to add Jane as a
friend on Facebook, but Jane blocked his request.
During
May and June of 2009, Brian Thompson, Assistant Principal at A.L.'s school, had
spoken to A.L about his interactions with Jane.
A.L. told him that he was upset that Jane did not want to be his friend,
but promised to stop sending messages to Jane.
However, in July, A.L. sent an email message to Mr. Thompson to let him
know that he still wanted to contact Jane.
One week in early September, A.L. went to Mr. Thompson's office and told
him that he wanted to talk to Jane; Mr. Thompson told him not to contact
her.
Later
that same week, Jane went to Mr. Thompson's office with copies of messages that
A.L. had sent her. Mr. Thompson arranged
a meeting with A.L. and his father to discuss A.L.'s unwanted contact with
Jane. A.L. signed a "behavior
contract" in which he agreed not to initiate contact with Jane in person
or by any other means. A.L. was warned
that if he broke the contract, disciplinary action would occur. As a disciplinary measure, A.L. was
instructed to attend Saturday school for lying about his contact with Jane over
the summer.
Adam
Stickles, Assistant Dean of Discipline at A.L.'s school, testified that on
September 23, 2009, he met with A.L., Mr. Thompson, and Officer Grogin. A.L. was asked about the messages Jane had
been receiving, including those Jane had received from Lina; A.L. admitted he
had authored those messages. Mr.
Stickles reminded A.L. of the terms of his behavioral contract, but A.L. said
that he had trouble following the contract because he had not had
"closure" in his previous contacts with Jane. A.L. explained that in turning away his
advances, Jane was "frustrating him."
According
to Jane in early 2010, on her birthday, she received a message on
Facebook from someone named "Tanya."
The message said something similar to " 'Be careful with those who
love you.' " Jane concluded the
message came from A.L. because it was consistent with the type of messages that
A.L. had sent to her before.
The
day Jane received the message from "Tanya," Jane filed a formal
complaint about A.L.'s behavior. Jane
told Mr. Thompson that A.L. was stalking her; he would follow her to the
classroom where she had her fifth period class and wait for her on a bench near
where she had her sixth period class.
Jane said that she did not feel safe, was "having anxiety" and
was having trouble sleeping; she thought that A.L. was going to harm her. As a result of the breach of his behavior
contract and his refusal to leave Jane alone, A.L. was transferred to another
school.
Subsequently,
A.L. wrote angry posts on his Facebook page.
In these posts he said that he blamed Jane for getting him "kicked
out" of his favorite school and for taking away his friends, his
happiness, his education, his motivation and for ruining his reputation and
life. In one post, A.L. wrote, " 'I
didn't want to move on, but I tried. I
know what's wrong with me and it's because you lied. I suffered from it for a long time. Very convinced to commit a crime. I'd like to leave now and just be free. I won't go unless you leave with me.' "
A.L.
created a group posting on his Facebook page, which he entitled " 'When
230 people joined, [A.L.] will express his real feelings for her.' " A.L. wrote on the group posting, "
'Would give anything to shed tears of joy while in your arms. We both want the suffering to end. Let us end it.' "
On February
11, 2010, shortly before 12:15 p.m., Susan Walker, the Principal at Jane's
school, received information that A.L. was on campus near "Mustang
Lane," the main thoroughfare onto the school campus. Ms. Walker found A.L. wearing aviator
glasses, even though it was not a sunny day, and a leather jacket.
longer a student at the school, to which A.L. responded that he had never
agreed to attend another school.
As A.L.
would not move, Ms. Walker called for the police to escort A.L. to the school
office so that he could be taken home by his parents before Jane saw him. After Ms. Walker called the police, A.L.
agreed to go with her to the office.
However, A.L. began to head down Mustang Lane toward the front of the
school campus. Officer Victor Rodriguez
and Officer Stevens arrived and attempted to escort A.L. to the campus security
office. A.L. refused to make eye contact
with them and had a "blank stare."
Officer Rodriguez tried to pat search A.L. but A.L. "tried to take
off running" northbound on Mustang Lane toward Blossom Hill.
Jane
testified that as she approached her fifth period class she saw A.L. dressed in
a trench coat with police officers surrounding him. Jane became very concerned as she knew
something was going to happen. When she
saw A.L., their eyes "lock[ed]" and A.L. ran around the officers and
toward her; she thought he was coming after her. A.L. came within 20 or 30 feet of her. While attempting to run, A.L. dropped a
school map that bore markings that were near the classrooms by Mustang Lane and
the girl's locker room. According to
Jane, as A.L started to run towards her, Ms. Walker told her to go to the
office.
Officer
Stevens grabbed A.L. as he started to run and a struggle ensued; Officer
Rodriguez saw A.L. attempt to reach under his trench coat for something with
his right arm, but was prevented from so doing by the officers. Although A.L. was trying to resist, Officer
Rodriguez grabbed A.L.'s arm and placed him in handcuffs. During a pat search of A.L., Officer
Rodriguez located something solid in the interior left hand side of A.L.'s
trench coat that aroused his suspicions.
Accordingly, Officer Rodriguez went into the interior left hand side of
the trench coat and removed a green towel inside of which was a 12-inch
serrated butcher-type knife; the blade was approximately seven and a half
inches.
The
officers found what appeared to Officer Rodriguez to be a suicide note; the
note read " 'Dearest Cassandra, you've been such a wonderful friend to
me. I would never did [
me, I cannot love you the way I loved [Jane].
I still love you, of course, as a friend, as a cousin, as a sister. You've been there for me. Supporting me. One of the nicest and caring girls I've ever
[m]et.' " The letter
concluded, " 'By the time you actually read this letter, I'm already
dead, Cassandra. . . . Be
careful with the people that you love.
[Jane] wasn't careful with me.
But we'll be together now. Just
her and I. In a happy place. I promise I'll take care of her. And I'll do my best to protect you with
whatever power I earn.' "
Officer
Rodriguez found two more letters that were addressed to Jane. In one note, A.L. told Jane that she had
prevented his third suicide attempt, but then abandoned him. He said that he "suffered the pain"
she had inflicted on him by her "careless and selfish actions" and
"ignorance." A.L. wrote that
he would "rather not have revenge," but Jane had made "no efforts
in finding a solution in restoring" their relationship. A.L. said that he had "been suffering
all this time" and if "this keeps going" he would not "be
ready for what's to come in the future."
In a second note, again, A.L. blamed Jane for abandoning him. He said that he was "not going to live
with this." He blamed Jane for
ruining his life and told her that she "should have thought about"
her "actions before committing them."
A.L concluded that he both loved and hated Jane, and " 'would
face any horror and overcome [his] darkest fears just to hear [her] voice
before [he went] to sleep.' "
A.L.
was in handcuffs when the officers escorted him to the campus security
office. After Officer Rodriguez gave
A.L. Miranda advisements,
was present. After Ms. Walker arrived,
A.L. told the officers that he came to the school that day to kill Jane; he had
planned the killing in his head numerous times.
He said that he regretted not stabbing and killing Ms. Walker when she
first approached him and he was planning on killing the officers to get to
Jane. A.L. said he was not concerned
about having to fight them. A.L.
said that he arrived on campus early so he could kill Jane "in front of
everybody." After he killed Jane he
was going to kill himself. While giving his statement, A.L. expressed no remorse and
remained focused and coherent.
Dr. Leonard
Donk, a forensic psychologist, testified for the defense that A.L. had an
erotomanic type delusional disorder. A
person with this type of disorder mistakenly believes someone is in love with
them. The delusion can become so
powerful that the afflicted person "cannot stop thinking about
them." However, the afflicted
person becomes a "wounded narcissist," who cannot understand why the
object of their affection will not do things for them. According to Dr. Donk, A.L.'s delusion
possibly overrode his conscience and caused him to blame his problems on Jane. Dr. Donk diagnosed A.L. as also having obsessive
compulsive disorder.
Dr. Donk
concluded that A.L. had a linear plan; it was not a sophisticated plan, but he
had "clearly done some thinking."
However, he did not plan anything other than a series of steps and as
soon as that series of steps was interrupted whatever the plan was, it
dissolved.
Discussion
As
noted, A.L. challenges as insufficient the evidence to support the true finding
on the attempted murder conviction.
Specifically, A.L. argues that a careful review of his written and oral
statements together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the
circumstances of the offense, establish that he did not have the required
intent to kill at the time of his arrest.
Further, the evidence was insufficient to conclude that he took a direct
step toward killing Jane.
Attempted
requires the specific intent to kill and the
commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended
killing. (People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1,
7 (Decker); § 21a.) "Preparation alone is not enough, there
must be some appreciable fragment of the crime committed, it must be in such
progress that it will be consummated unless interrupted by circumstances
independent of the will of the attempter, and the act must not be
(People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 718, overruled on another
ground by People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 422.)
To
put it another way, " ' "To constitute murder, the guilty
person need not intend to take life; but to constitute an attempt to murder, he
must so intend." [Citation.] "The wrong-doer must specifically
contemplate taking life; and though his act is such as, were it successful,
would be murder, if in truth he does not mean to kill, he does not become guilty
of an attempt to commit murder."
[Citation.]'
[Citations.]" (People v.
Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 327-328.)
"There is rarely direct evidence of a defendant's intent. Such
intent must usually be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt,
including the defendant's actions.
[Citation.]" (People v.
Chinchilla (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 683, 690.)
"One who intentionally attempts to kill another does not often
declare his state of mind either before, at, or after the moment he
[acts]. Absent such direct evidence, the
intent obviously must be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt,
including the putative killer's actions and words. Whether a defendant possessed the requisite
intent to kill is, of course a question for the trier of fact. While reasonable minds may differ on the
resolution of that issue, our sole function is to determine if any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Citations.]" (People v.
Lashley (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 938, 945-946 (Lashley).) "Our role is
to determine the legal sufficiency of the found facts and not to second guess
the reasoning or wisdom of the fact finder." (Id. at p. 946.) "[I]t has long been conclusively
established in this state, beyond the need for citation of authority, that a
person to be guilty of the crime of attempt to commit
to kill at the time of the overt act by which the
(People v. Santascoy (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 909, 913.)
In
finding the attempted murder charge to be true the court made the following
findings: "[T]here are
relatively few disputed facts of any significance in this case. The only one I think is really the timing and
characteristics of what was either [A.L.]'s intended flight from the police
and/or his last gasp attempt to reach [Jane].
[¶] The only real dispute is what
was going on in the mind of [A.L.] on February 11th, 2010, and that is always a
difficult thing to determine, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt nearly two
years later. [¶] For what it's worth, we all agree, and I find
[A.L.] was romantically focused on [Jane] to the extent any layperson would
call an obsession. [¶] There is no evidence that [Jane] ever
encouraged a relationship. Great deal of
evidence that she did everything possible to free herself from his unwanted
attentions and obsessive behaviors. And
the evidence proves that [A.L.] was aware of and deeply hurt by his inability
to establish a relationship with [Jane].
[¶] He thereafter armed himself,
wrote the notes that were found on his person.
I think the only reasonable interpretation of which suggests some
combination of suicide and homicide. And
he trespassed on a crowded campus when he was sure of exactly where the victim
would be and was very close to that location when detected. [¶] As
a matter of law, I believe that the intent present in his mind at that moment
before the authorities intervened is the sole disputed issue in this case. We agree that in order to find the defendant
guilty of Count 1, at least, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he had an intent to kill. [¶] Recapping, the armed mentally troubled youth
was trespassing and had come to a location within yards of where he knew the
victim would be. He had notes indicating
that he hated the victim for not responding to him but he also did indicate
that he loved her as well. And the noted
indicated -- a note indicating that he would be dead by the time the reader
read the note. And he had absolutely no
reason to think that the victim would respond to him any differently than she
had in any other time. [¶] I think the only reasonable inference
supported by the facts and others is that [A.L.] specifically intended to kill
the victim. There's little evidence or
no ambiguity in the Court's view, but even if there had been ambiguity, that
would have been eliminated by [A.L.]'s post-Miranda statements to the police
and school officials when he said unambiguously that his intent was to kill the
victim."
A.L.
argues that the uncontroverted testimony of both people who were present when
he made his statements was not that he arrived at the school intending to kill
Jane, but that he went to the school intending to win her back, and only if
certain conditional events failed to materialize would he kill her and then
himself. A.L. points out that the
following testimony supports this claim.
"[Prosecutor]:
During the course of this conversation [the security office interrogation], did
he say that he had come to campus with the intent to kill [Jane]?
"[School
Principal]: Yes, that he was going to
give her one more chance, apparently. He
had a plan that -- again, I don't remember exactly. But my understanding was that he was going to
have one of her friends drive them somewhere and give her one last chance. If she didn't decide to like him, that he was
going to kill her."
Later
when asked by the prosecutor if she remembered A.L. saying that he was going to
kill Jane with a knife, the principal replied "Yes." The prosecutor went on to ask "And that
was if she did not comply with anything that he asked to?" The principal replied, "Right. If the friend didn't come and she wouldn't
go."
Similarly,
Officer Rodriguez testified to what A.L. told him. Specifically, he testified that A.L. told him
"he came to [the school] to kill [Jane]." When asked by the prosecutor what the officer
was told as to what A.L. was going to do on campus, the officer replied,
"He said he was going to find [Jane], take her hostage, have her read the
note, and if she didn't comply with the note, then he was going to kill
her."
A.L.
argues that he had a linear, sequential plan.
Based on the foregoing evidence he asserts that "no inference can
be made -- without resorting to conjecture and guesswork -- as to what might
have happened had [he] actually approached [Jane] and set the various predicate
steps into motion." He asserts that
his statements, "both written and verbal must be viewed through the lens
of his mental illness, where grandiosity and false reality are classic
traits." He argues that his mental
illness necessarily injects uncertainty and ambiguity into all his statements. In addition, A.L. asserts that the juvenile
court's conclusion that his arrival on campus with a knife at the time and
location where Jane would emerge from class lent itself to only one reasonable
interpretation -- namely, that he intended a combination homicide and suicide
was based on the assumption that Jane would not respond to his pleas to come
back to him because she had not done so in the past. However, he argues that a finding of
attempted murder cannot rest on what Jane might or might not do, but on the
court's determination of what he intended to do at the time when he was
apprehended. The only intent reasonably
supported by the evidence, A.L. argues, is his intent to persuade Jane to come
back to him.
Were
A.L.'s statements to the officers after he was arrested as outlined
on the day in question, we might have agreed with A.L. However, A.L. made other statement's both
written and oral and did things from which a reasonable trier of fact could
conclude that A.L. went to the school with the intent to kill Jane and that it
was not conditional on Jane's reaction to his requests.
Absent
obviously, we must derive A.L.'s intent from all the circumstances of the
attempt, including A.L.'s actions and words.
(Lashley, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at pp.
945-946.) Perhaps the most damning piece
of evidence on this point was A.L's action when Jane arrived on the scene. That is, he attempted to run toward her at
the same time as he attempted to reach under his trench coat with his right
hand, where it was later discovered he had concealed a knife. A.L.'s letters to Cassandra and Jane strongly
implied that his plan was to kill Jane and then himself and that his actions
were not contingent on anything that Jane did or did not do. The court was free to reject, as it
necessarily did in finding the attempted kidnapping charge to be not true,
A.L.'s self-serving statements to the officers that he was going to give Jane
one chance to go with him and if she did not only then would he kill her.
Furthermore,
the notes that A.L. wrote and A.L.'s Facebook postings indicated that A.L.
blamed Jane for his unhappiness and ruining his life. Thus, the notes and A.L.'s Facebook postings
strongly suggested a motive for A.L. to kill Jane. Although evidence of motive is not required
to establish intent to kill, evidence of motive is often probative on the
issue. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 740 [where motive is shown,
such evidence will usually be probative of proof of
to kill.].)
While
reasonable minds may differ on the resolution of the issue of A.L.'s intent
when he went to the school to see Jane, our sole function is to determine if any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jackson v.
Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; see also People v. Johnson (1980)
26 Cal.3d 557, 575-578.) We reiterate,
"[d]ue process of law does not require a reviewing court to reweigh
evidence or redetermine witness credibility.
In fact, it would distort the process if this court, reading a 'cold'
record, substituted its judgment for that of the trier of fact who saw and
heard the live witnesses. Our role is to
determine the legal sufficiency of the found facts and not to second guess the
reasoning or wisdom of the fact finder."
(Lashley, supra, 1
Cal.App.4th at p. 946.)
sitting as the trier of fact, had sufficient evidence before the court from
which it could find that A.L., having publicly expressed his animosity to Jane
in his Facebook postings and in his letters, had the specific intent to kill
Jane when he went to the school armed with a knife and suicide/homicide notes.
Finally,
A.L. argues that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that he took a
direct step toward killing Jane.
As
noted, attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the
commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended
killing. (§ 21a; People v. Lee
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623.)
name="_ftnref6" title="">[6] "For an attempt, the overt act must go
beyond mere preparation and show that the killer is putting his or her plan
into action; it need not be the last proximate or ultimate step toward
commission of the crime or crimes [citation], nor need it satisfy any element
of the crime. [Citation.]" (Decker, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 8.) However, as our Supreme Court has
explained, " '[b]etween preparation for the attempt and the attempt
itself, there is a wide difference. The
preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary
for the commission of the offense; the attempt is the direct movement toward
preparations are made.'
[Citations.] ' "[I]t is
sufficient if it is the first or some subsequent act directed towards that end
after the preparations are made." '
'[w]henever the design of a person to commit crime is clearly shown, slight
acts in furtherance of the design will constitute an attempt.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)
Viewing
the entirety of A.L.'s conduct in light of his unequivocal
we find sufficient evidence under the slight-acts rule for the juvenile court
to have found true the attempted murder charge.
A.L. armed himself with a knife and a map of the school grounds marked
with classroom locations; he proceeded to the school at a time when he thought
Jane would be on campus. Had A.L.'s plan
not been interrupted by Ms. Walker we have no doubt given his animosity toward
Jane, the fact he was armed with a knife and suicide/homicide notes that he
would have carried out his plan to kill Jane and then himself so they could
"be together . . . ." Even if
we were to conclude that all of A.L.'s conduct up until the time when he was
stopped by Ms. Walker was mere preparation, A.L.'s conduct when Jane arrived on
the scene would alone satisfy the test for an overt act.
A.L. argues
that the evidence failed to establish an " 'appreciable fragment of the
crime' " of murder. He argues that
he never approached Jane,
name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]
never removed the knife, never delivered the letters, nor did he make an overt
threat.
Our Supreme
Court has explained the "reference [in People v. Buffum, supra, 40
Cal.2d 709, 718] to an 'appreciable fragment of the crime' is simply a
restatement of the requirement of an overt act directed towards immediate
consummation; it does not establish the novel requirement that an actual
element of the offense be proved in every case." (People
v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 454
(Dillon).)
The fact
that A.L. was never within striking distance of Jane, did not actually remove
the knife, make an overt threat or deliver his letters is of no moment. As the Dillon
court observed long ago, "It is obviously impossible to be certain that a
person will not lose his resolve to commit the crime until he completes the
last act necessary for its accomplishment.
But the law of attempts would be largely without function if it could
not be invoked until the trigger was pulled, the blow struck, or the money
seized. If it is not clear from a suspect's
acts what he intends to do, an observer cannot reasonably conclude that a crime
will be committed; but when the acts are such that any rational person would
believe a crime is about to be consummated absent an intervening force, the
attempt is underway, and a last-minute change of heart by the perpetrator
should not be permitted to exonerate him."
(Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 455.)
" 'One of the purposes of the
criminal law is to protect society from those who intend to injure it. When it is established that the defendant
intended to commit a specific crime and that in carrying out this intention he
committed an act that caused harm or
sufficient danger of harm, it is immaterial that for some collateral reason
he could not complete the intended crime.'
[Citation.]" (
Accordingly, given the evidence as
outlined ante, we reject A.L.'s
contention that there was insufficient evidence that he took a direct step
towards killing Jane.
Disposition
The
juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
________________________________
ELIA,
J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
RUSHING, P. J.
____________________________
PREMO, J.
We refer to the victim in this
case as Jane Doe or Jane to protect her anonymity.
All undesignated section
references are to the Penal Code.
