What is the test for "knowing the consequences" of a first degree murder?

The jury's question concerned "the meaning of the phrase 'knowing the consequences'" of a defendant's decision to kill, and not the difference between first degree murder and murder generally. In addition, defendant's act of killing with a "malice aforethought" state of mind cannot reasonably be construed to be one of the "consequences" of that killing. The court in People v. Cordero, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d 275 explained, "The 'consequences' contemplated in CALJIC No. 8.20 are those flowing from the act of killing . . . . Nowhere does the law require [that a defendant's] reflection [required for first degree murder] specifically to concern the consequences to the killer, the victim, or any other particular thing. The killer need only reflect on some consequence of the act about to be committed." (Id. at p. 282.)

Page 8

In addition, as noted above, for there to be ineffective assistance of counsel, the record must show the reason for the challenged actions or omissions of defendant's counsel, unless there could be no satisfactory explanation. (People v. Espiritu, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at pp. 725-726.) The record does not show that there is no satisfactory explanation for his counsel's failure to object the trial court's response to the jury's question. There was no reasonable basis upon which to object. The trial court's response was proper and the jury reasonably would not have been misled.