How have courts considered "laying in wait" instruction in the context of a woman's murder case?

In People v. Thomas (1953) 41 Cal.2d 470, 261 P.2d 1, the defendant carried a rifle under the rear seat of his car and drove around Los Angeles periodically firing at women, allegedly, to achieve an outlet for sexual frustration. On the night of the murder in issue, the defendant saw his victim, a stranger to him, as he drove by in his car. He drove around the block and parked in an alley, where he positioned himself to shoot her. As explained in the concurring opinion by Justice Traynor (41 Cal.2d 470, 475-482), the attacks upon other women permitted an inference of watching and waiting for victims, whereas the stationing in the alley provided the element of concealment.

In People v. Sutic (1953) 41 Cal.2d 483, 261 P.2d 241, the defendant was sitting in his car, parked one-third of a mile from the victim's home, when the victims were returning home at 8:10 p. m. While the family was lying in bed 20 minutes later defendant drove up and fired shots through the window, one bullet killing a sleeping child. The Sutic court upheld the conviction on both the premeditation/deliberation and lying in wait grounds submitted to the jury.

In People v. Byrd (1954) 42 Cal.2d 200, 266 P.2d 505, overruled on other grounds in People v. Green (1956) 47 Cal.2d 209, 232, 302 P.2d [129 Cal.App.3d 1009] 307, the defendant waited outside his wife's house for four hours, until her guests had left. He then walked in and immediately shot her. The court found that the evidence justified the lying in wait instruction. Similarly, the instruction was warranted in People v. Rosoto (1962) 58 Cal.2d 304, 355, 23 Cal.Rptr. 779, 373 P.2d 867, when the defendant waited two hours for the victim to come home and ran up from the side of the house to shoot him when he arrived at 3 a.m. In People v. Harrison (1963) 59 Cal.2d 622, 30 Cal.Rptr. 841, 381 P.2d 665, the court found sufficient evidence of lying in wait when the defendant attacked the victim with a butcher knife as she emerged from her apartment. He had not been seen on the street prior to the attack and he had called the victim at her apartment one-half hour earlier.

In People v. Ward (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 218, 103 Cal.Rptr. 671, the court analyzed the foregoing decisions and concluded that the three required elements for "lying in wait" are watching, waiting, and concealment, but that the concealment "may manifest itself by either an ambush or by the creation of a situation where the victim is taken unawares even though he sees his murderer." (27 Cal.App.3d at 230, 103 Cal.Rptr. 671.) In Ward, the defendant waited in the car while his associate established that the victim was home. The victim's questions "Who are you? " and "What is this? " when defendant approached the door were sufficient evidence that he was taken unawares.

In all these cases the killings followed closely after the periods of watching and

Page 492