Does a murder defendant have the necessary intent to steal at the time of the act of force against the victim?

The court in People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th at page 35 rejected the prosecution's argument that when the defendant killed the victim, he intended to collect a token or souvenir from her and thus, according to the prosecutor's theory, the defendant had the requisite intent to steal at the time of the act of force against the victim, even if the force was directed towards the criminal objective of rape rather than the taking of property. The court explained: "Defendant's possession of the letter written to [the victim] by the grocery market supports an inference that he took the letter from [the victim] or her immediate presence, but is not evidence that 'reasonably inspires confidence' [citation] that defendant killed [the victim] for the purpose of obtaining the letter. If a person commits a murder, and after doing so takes the victim's wallet, the jury may reasonably infer that the murder was committed for the purpose of obtaining the wallet, because murders are commonly committed to obtain money. In this case, however, the letter taken by defendant was, in the prosecutor's words, an 'insignificant piece of paper.' The prosecution offered no evidence tending to show that the grocery's letter responding to [the victim]'s request for a check-cashing card was so valuable to defendant that he would be willing to commit murder to obtain it. Accordingly, defendant's possession of the letter does not constitute evidence of sufficient 'solid value' [citation] to support the conclusion that defendant killed [the victim] so that he could obtain possession of the letter. The prosecution's argument to the contrary is based purely on speculation. As we have said before, mere speculation cannot support a conviction. [Citations.] To be legally sufficient, evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (Ibid.)

Page 7