California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Simington, 19 Cal.App.4th 1374, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 (Cal. App. 1993):
It must be remembered that appellant was charged in count 1 with attempted murder. He was acquitted of this charge as well as the lesser offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Each of these offenses requires proof of a specific intent to kill. (People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 452, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697; People v. Van Ronk (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 818, 824, 217 Cal.Rptr. 581.) By its verdict acquitting appellant of these two offenses, the jury must have concluded that the evidence of a specific intent to kill was insufficient. In declining to convict, it would appear that the jury was unaffected and unmoved by the prosecutor's improper appeal to place themselves in the position of an attempted murder victim. In short, had the appeal to passion and prejudice been effective, one would have expected the jury to find appellant guilty of attempted murder or, at a minimum, attempted voluntary manslaughter. Instead, the jury acquitted appellant of these offenses.
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.