## Facts

- Mohammed Abdullah (formerly Bertrand Joseph Howk, Jr.), a university student, and Sonja Lillian Hoff, also a student, knew each other through shared academic interests.
- On the day of the homicide, Abdullah typed a note stating his intent to kill Hoff and then himself.
- The prosecution evidence—drawn largely from Abdullah’s trial testimony and post-arrest statements—showed a planned, deliberate killing.
- Martin Horowitz owned firearms and had been asked by Abdullah for a gun after Abdullah expressed an intent to kill Hoff.
- After an earlier occasion when Abdullah returned a gun saying he lacked the courage to use it, Horowitz later sold and furnished Abdullah a loaded gun shortly before the killing.
- Horowitz had been warned by another person not to provide Abdullah a gun due to concern about Abdullah’s mental condition.
- After the killing, Horowitz went to campus police and made statements acknowledging the weapon was his and that he knew of Abdullah’s threats to kill Hoff.
- Both defendants were tried jointly: Abdullah was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; Horowitz was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

## Issues

1. Whether any asserted errors required reversal of Abdullah’s first-degree murder conviction or warranted setting aside or reducing the death sentence.
2. Whether Horowitz’s act of furnishing a loaded gun to Abdullah, with knowledge of Abdullah’s threats and warnings about his condition, could support involuntary manslaughter liability under a criminal-negligence theory.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed Abdullah’s conviction for first-degree murder.
- The court affirmed the death sentence, finding no prejudicial guilt- or penalty-phase error requiring reversal or reduction.
- The court affirmed Horowitz’s involuntary manslaughter conviction, holding the evidence permitted the jury to find criminal negligence in furnishing the loaded gun under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- First-degree murder is supported where evidence shows a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
- Involuntary manslaughter may be based on (1) an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or (2) a lawful act performed “without due caution and circumspection” (criminal negligence).
- Furnishing a dangerous instrumentality can constitute criminal negligence when the provider knows of specific threats to kill and other facts making a lethal outcome reasonably foreseeable.
- On appellate review, asserted guilt- or penalty-phase errors warrant relief only if prejudicial in light of the whole record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Abdullah’s first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for a planned killing, and it sustained Horowitz’s involuntary manslaughter conviction because a jury could find that providing a loaded gun to a person who had threatened to kill, despite warnings, was a criminally negligent act making the death reasonably foreseeable.


People v. Howk, 365 P.2d 426 (Cal. 1961)