Can a defendant be found guilty of attempted murder (or voluntary manslaughter) if his intent was either to kill or to kill everyone on the dance floor?

Defendants failure to object to the instruction forfeits appellate review. Even if he had not forfeited review of the instruction, we would not reverse. It is a true statement of law that defendant would be guilty of attempted murder (or voluntary manslaughter) if his intent was either to kill people on the dance floor or to kill everyone on the dance floor. In the first instance, there would be no need for a kill zone theory. "[A] person who intends to kill can be guilty of attempted murder even if the person has no specific target in mind." ( People v. Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 140, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 362, 205 P.3d 272.) This part of the instruction was not confusing. Additionally, the trial court did not need to define the scope of the kill zone in this case, where the person defendant is accused of intending to kill was mere feet from the primary target, and was in fact hit by at least one of defendants bullets. Also, the courts instruction directed the jury by implication to find that defendant used sufficient force to create a kill zone, when it instructed the jury that defendant must have intended to kill everyone within the kill zone.