What is the evidence supporting a finding of malice in a second degree murder case?

The autopsy results confirmed Mendez was manually strangled prior to her death. After strangling Mendez, Marin used his four-inch grape-cutting knife to stab her 36 times. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds, three of which were independently life threatening: two pierced her liver and a third severed her trachea and left carotid artery. We agree with the Attorney General that these facts alone support a finding of malice. (See People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 561 ["In plunging the knife so deeply into such a vital area . . . defendant could have had no other intent than to kill"].) Because a reasonable jury could have concluded Marin intended to kill Mendez, it was justified in finding malice sufficient to return a conviction for second degree murder.

Marin does not dispute the finding he acted with the intent to kill, but instead argues that the murder conviction should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter because the killing occurred in the heat of passion. Marin's contention is supported almost exclusively by the testimony he gave as to his state of mind at the time of the killing. "'Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends. [Citation.] Thus, if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's

Page 10

credibility for that of the fact finder. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)