What evidence does the Attorney General have to prove defendant planned the murder because he consciously reached for the knife in his pocket and struck the victim with the intent to kill?

In essence, the Attorney General concludes defendant planned the murder because he consciously reached for the knife in his pocket and struck the victim with the intent to kill. We agree the evidence shows defendant made a conscious decision to use his knife, but this evidence shows an intent to kill only. A defendant acts with the specific intent to kill when he assaults his victim in a manner designed to achieve the additional consequence of the victim's death. (See People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 82 [specific intent defined as the intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence].) The Attorney General's description of defendant's conscious decision to use his knife in a manner designed to bring about the victim's death constitutes substantial evidence defendant specifically intended to kill, but does not show he carefully weighed the consequences of his act. To conclude otherwise would be nothing more than conjecture. To prove a defendant premeditated and deliberated the consequences of his action, there must be "substantially more reflection than may be involved in the formation of a specific intent to kill." (People v. Thomas, supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 900, italics added.)