California v. Warner

This case had its origins in a shooting at a crowded bar. Defendant Shane Warner took a semiautomatic hand gun, concealed in his waistband into a bar and shot across the bar’s semi-dark dance floor, illuminated by a strobe light, at I. Smith, who had attacked him a few weeks earlier. Defendant emptied the gun’s clip of 10 bullets and wounded, but did not kill his primary target, Smith, and wounded, but did not kill an innocent bystander, N.C. Defendant claimed to have acted in self-defense, but there was no evidence that Smith was armed. Defendant was charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted murder of Smith, and the prosecution eventually dismissed that count. The jury acquitted defendant of the attempted murder of N.C., but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The jury convicted defendant of assaulting N.C. with a semiautomatic firearm. The trial court sentenced defendant to 22 years in prison. Defendant argued on appeal the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter because he did not intend to kill N.C: he argued it was error to allow the prosecution to infer intent from a “kill zone” theory, and to so instruct the jury. The Court of Appeal concluded it was not an error to allow the prosecution to argue on such a theory: "Defendant’s actions in shooting a gun multiple times at a group of people on a crowded, semi-dark dance floor provided facts from which a reasonable jury could infer he intended to kill people on the dance floor, including N.C." View "California v. Warner" on Justia Law