## Facts

- Rival gang members had hostile encounters earlier in the day between Michael Canizales and Denzell Pride.
- At a neighborhood block party, Canizales, KeAndre Winfield, and others arrived armed and fired gunshots toward Pride, who was standing with Travion Bolden about 100–160 feet away.
- Pride and Bolden fled and were not injured, but an uninvolved bystander at the party was struck and killed.
- Evidence supported an inference that Pride was the primary target, including statements that the defendants went to the party “to go after” a rival gang member and Winfield yelling in Pride’s direction before the shooting.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury on a kill zone theory for attempted murder, permitting conviction for attempted murder of Bolden if defendants intended to kill Pride and everyone in the vicinity around him.
- The jury convicted defendants of first degree murder (bystander) and two counts of attempted murder (Pride and Bolden), with gang and firearm enhancements; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. When may a trial court properly instruct on the kill zone theory for attempted murder under California law?
2. Whether the evidence supported giving a kill zone instruction as to Bolden (a non-primary target standing near the alleged primary target, Pride).
3. Whether any instructional error regarding the kill zone theory was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that the kill zone theory is not a separate offense or a reduced mens rea standard; it is an evidentiary route to infer intent to kill.
- The Court substantially limited use of the kill zone instruction: it is proper only when the circumstances of the attack support the only reasonable inference that the defendant intended to create a zone of fatal harm to kill everyone within it to ensure the primary target’s death, and the alleged non-primary victim was within that zone.
- The Court concluded the evidence was insufficient to justify a kill zone instruction for the attempted murder of Bolden because the shooting (outdoors, at distance) did not compel the inference that defendants intended to kill everyone in a defined area around Pride rather than intending to kill Pride while risking harm to others.
- The Court reversed in part and remanded, finding the erroneous kill zone instruction as to Bolden was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill the alleged victim; the kill zone theory does not relax this requirement.
- A kill zone instruction is permitted only if the manner of attack on a primary target supports the only reasonable inference that the defendant intended to kill everyone in a defined area to ensure the primary target’s death, and the non-primary victim was within that area.
- The kill zone theory requires evidence of a primary target; absent evidence of a primary target, the theory does not apply.
- Trial courts should use kill zone instructions sparingly because they risk conviction where the evidence supports only conscious disregard of lethal risk to others rather than intent to kill them.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court limited kill zone attempted-murder liability to cases where the attack’s circumstances compel the inference that the defendant intended to kill everyone in a defined fatal zone to ensure a primary target’s death, and it reversed the attempted murder conviction tied to an unsupported kill zone instruction.


People v. Canizales, 7 Cal. 5th 591, 442 P.3d 686 (Cal. 2019)