People v. Swain
909 P.2d 994 · California Supreme Court · 1996
Facts
On January 13, 1991, around 2 a.m., a brown van slowed in the Hunter’s Point neighborhood of San Francisco near a group of Samoan youths. Shots were fired from the front and rear of the van, striking 15-year-old Hagbom Saileele twice from behind, leading to his death. Defendant Swain later boasted in jail about shooting the "Samoan kid" from the van. Swain's fingerprint was found on the driver's side window of the abandoned van. The fatal gun was traced to defendant Chatman, who gave conflicting accounts of its possession. Chatman admitted driving the van for revenge for a car theft, but claimed Swain was not present, while Swain denied involvement, stating he left the van earlier.
Procedural history
Defendants Jamal K. Swain and David Chatman were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes, with the jury finding the target offense to be second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced them to 15 years to life for conspiracy. Both defendants appealed, raising the issue of intent to kill for conspiracy to commit murder, and the People also appealed regarding sentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and judgments in their entirety. This court granted review, limiting it to the issues of intent to kill for conspiracy to commit murder and the appropriate punishment.
Issue
Is intent to kill a required element of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder, particularly when the target offense is determined to be murder in the second degree, or can one conspire to commit implied malice murder?
Holding
Yes, intent to kill is a required element of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. The court reversed the defendants’ conspiracy convictions because the jury instructions allowed for a finding of implied malice, and the general verdicts did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury found an intent to kill.
Rule
Conspiracy is a specific intent crime, requiring both an intent to agree and an intent to commit the elements of the target offense. Murder requires malice aforethought, which can be express (intent to kill) or implied (intent to do a dangerous act with conscious disregard for life, resulting in death). Implied malice murder does not require an intent to kill, as malice is implied from the act and the resulting death. It is illogical to conspire to commit implied malice murder because conspiracy is an inchoate crime, fixed at the agreement stage, and implied malice requires a killing to have actually occurred. Therefore, conspiracy to commit murder requires a finding of intent to kill and cannot be based on a theory of implied malice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.