What is the current state of the law on the doctrine of concurrent intent in cases where a bystander was shot and killed by a defendant who then intended to kill the intended victim?

People v. Bland, 28 Cal. 4th 313, 329-330 (2002), attempted to define attempted murder and the intent required in what was both a contraction and seeming expansion in convictions for attempted murder in which bystanders were shot along with an intended victim. While it precluded the doctrine of transferred intent in such situations, it did permit concurrent intent. However, that intent was defined as the desire on the part of the perpetrator to kill everyone within a kill zone in order to achieve the death of the intended victim.³ However, the case left

Page 18

undefined those situations where no intended victim was identified, yet shots were purposefully fired into a group.

People v. Stone, 46 Cal. 4th 131, 140 (2009), indicated that attempted murder could be found for anyone in the "kill zone" as long as the defendant determined to kill someone in a group within that zone, albeit the precise victim was unidentified.

Page 19

See also People v. Ervin, 47 Cal. 4th 745, 786 (2009) ("The record at trial supports the inference that defendant expected the peace officers to come to his house, that he did not want to be arrested, and that he prepared an elaborate ambush, placing gas cans inside and outside the house and choosing a sniper location above the officers, to prevent being arrested. This plan, of course, would require the killing of all officers who were present.")