California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Stewart, F064564 (Cal. App. 2014):
An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) Before the judgment of the trial court can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, "it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury." (People v. Hicks (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 423, 429; see People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453.)
"'The mental state required for attempted murder has long differed from that required for murder itself. Murder does not require the intent to kill. Implied malicea conscious disregard for lifesuffices. [Citation.]' [Citation.] In contrast, '[a]ttempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.' [Citations.]" (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739.)
"[I]t is well settled that intent to kill or express malice, the mental state required to convict a defendant of attempted murder, may in many cases be inferred from the defendant's acts and the circumstances of the crime. [Citation.] 'There is rarely direct evidence of a defendant's intent. Such intent must usually be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt, including the defendant's actions....'" (People v. Smith, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 741.)
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.