In what circumstances will the court grant defendants a motion to bifurcate the charges of attempted murder and transferred intent?

Here, it is not reasonably probable that but for the alleged inadequacy of the transferred intent instructions defendants would have received a more favorable result at trial. The prosecutor never argued to the jury that it should apply the doctrine of transferred intent to the attempted murder charges. To the contrary, the prosecutor unambiguously argued that the doctrine applied only to the murder of Gaohoun.⁵ With regard to the attempted murder charges, the prosecutor argued that the manner in which they were perpetrated established the requisite intent to kill everyone in both households that were shot at. In light of the plain language of the instruction, the prosecutor's argument explaining the doctrine, and the absence of any requests by the jury for clarification, any suggestion that the jury might have erroneously applied the doctrine is sheer speculation. Further, as discussed earlier, the evidence amply supported the convictions, including the premeditation and deliberation findings on the attempted murder charges. This was a case of gangland-style murder and attempted murder for the purposes of retaliation. It is not reasonably probable that if counsel had obtained any further clarification that the doctrine of transferred intent did not apply to the attempted murder charges, defendants would have received a more favorable result. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

IV.The court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion to bifurcate.^****