What is the test for a finding of premeditation in a second-degree murder case?

Next, despite our reversal of defendant's conviction, we must consider defendant's substantial evidence challenge to the verdict because, if we were to agree with defendant, double jeopardy would bar a retrial. (People v. Lagunas (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1030, 1038-1039, fn. 6.) Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation and that defendant could at most have been convicted of second-degree murder. We disagree.

Page 19

"In deciding whether substantial evidence supports a verdict, a court does not '"ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Lagunas, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1038-1039, fn. 6.)

In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence of premeditation, courts have focused on three nonexclusive factors. "The type of evidence which this court has found sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation falls into three basic categories: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing what may be characterized as 'planning' activity; (2) facts about the defendant's prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a 'motive' to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that the killing was the result of 'a pre-existing reflection' and 'careful thought and weighing of considerations' rather than 'mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed' [citation]; (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a 'preconceived design' to take his victim's life in a particular way for a 'reason' which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2)." (People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27.)