What is the test for determining whether a defendant had the necessary intent to kill when he fired his rifle at the victim?

Defendant relies on People v. Lashley (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 938. The court explained that a defendant who intends to kill a person rarely declares such intent before he shoots. (Id. at p. 945.) As a result, "the intent obviously must be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt, including the putative killer's actions and words. Whether a defendant possessed the requisite intent to kill is, of course, a question for the trier of fact. While reasonable minds may differ on the resolution of that issue, our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Id. at p. 946.)

In Lashley, the defendant claimed he had no intent to kill when he fired his rifle at the victim because the defendant perceived that the victim was threatening his friend at knifepoint. (People v. Lashley, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 944.) The Lashley court held that the evidence that the defendant intentionally shot toward the victim was sufficient to find that defendant did intend to kill the victim, acknowledging that the trier of fact "was free to reject, as it necessarily did, defendant's self-serving testimony that he [did so] intending merely to scare or to inflict a nonfatal wound." (Id. at p. 946.)