California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Snead, 20 Cal.App.4th 1088, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 (Cal. App. 1993):
"The People also fail to propose a theory under which defendant's use of gasoline vapor could be deemed to meet the further requirement of subdivision (a)(6) of section 190.2 that murder be committed by means of an explosive 'that the defendant mailed or delivered, attempted to mail or deliver, or cause[d] to be mailed or delivered, ...' Assuming arguendo that throwing a substance through a window or door constitutes 'delivery' within the meaning of subdivision (a)(6), the substance that defendant threw was not, as we have shown, an explosive. It was gasoline. The gasoline vapor was not 'delivered.' It arose by an independent physical process after the gasoline was thrown into the home. And the vapor alone was not explosive until it combined with air in the required proportion. Manifestly, defendant did not deliver the air that was already present in the victims' home. Thus, even if gasoline vapor were an explosive, or the manner in which gasoline is used were a basis for considering it an explosive, defendant could not be found to have killed by means of delivery of an explosive, and thus his conduct was not conduct described in subdivision (a)(6)." (People v. Clark, supra, at pp. 604-605, 268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127, original emphasis.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.