28 Cal. 4th 313 - People v. Bland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 253 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 267 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[W]here a single act is alleged to be an attempt on two [or more] persons' lives, the intent to kill should be evaluated independently as to each victim, and the jury should not be instructed to transfer intent from one to another.' [Citation.] [¶] ... [¶] ... To be guilty of attempted murder, the defendant must intend to kill the alleged victim, not someone else. The defendant's mental state must be examined as to each alleged attempted murder victim. Someone who intends to kill only one person and attempts unsuccessfully to do so, is guilty of the attempted murder of the intended victim, but not of others." ( People v. Bland, supra, at pp. 327-328 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 11 .07.)”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cockrell v. State · Harrison v. State

2. “California cases that have affirmed convictions requiring the intent to kill persons other than the primary target can be considered "kill zone" cases even though they do not employ that term. In People v. Vang (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 554 , 563-565, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 704 , for example, the defendants shot at two occupied houses. The Court of Appeal affirmed attempted murder charges as to everyone in both houses-11 counts-even though the defendants may have targeted only one person at each house. "The jury drew a reasonable inference, in light of the placement of the shots, the number of shots, and the use of high-powered, wall-piercing weapons, that defendants harbored a specific intent to kill every living being within the residences they shot up.... The fact they could not see all of their victims did not somehow negate their express malice or intent to kill as to those victims who were present and in harm's way, but fortuitously were not killed." This case permits-virtually compels-a similar inference. Even if the jury found that defendant primarily wanted to kill Wilson rather than Wilson's passengers, it could reasonably also have found a concurrent intent to kill those passengers when defendant and his cohort fired a flurry of bullets at the fleeing car and thereby created a kill zone. Such a finding fully supports attempted murder convictions as to the passengers.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Warner · Harrison v. State

3. “when the nature and scope of the attack, while directed at a primary victim, are such that we can conclude the perpetrator intended to ensure harm to the primary victim by harming everyone in that victim's vicinity.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Warner · People v. Stevenson