Facts
- Ronald Decker sought to have his sister, Donna Decker, killed because he did not want to do it himself and believed he would become the prime suspect.
- Decker contacted a person he believed to be a professional assassin, who was actually an undercover police detective.
- Decker provided detailed information about Donna, including her description, residence, car, workplace, and daily habits.
- Decker discussed killing Donna’s friend, Hermine Riley Bafiera, if necessary to avoid leaving a witness.
- Decker and the undercover detective agreed on the method of killing, the price, and payment terms.
- Decker paid a $5,000 cash down payment after reaffirming he was “absolutely, positively, 100 percent sure” he wanted the murders carried out.
- Decker was charged with, among other offenses, attempted premeditated murder of Donna and Hermine and solicitation to commit murder.
- The magistrate and superior court dismissed the attempted murder counts, concluding the evidence showed solicitation but not a “direct but ineffectual act” toward murder.
- The Court of Appeal ordered reinstatement of the attempted murder counts; the California Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflict over whether such conduct can constitute attempt.
Issues
- Whether a defendant who hires a supposed assassin, provides operational details, and pays a down payment has committed a “direct but ineffectual act” sufficient for attempted murder, rather than only solicitation.
- Whether solicitation necessarily merges into, or is barred by, an attempted murder charge arising from the same course of conduct.
- Whether prior authority treating similar “hired killer” conduct as only solicitation should be followed.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the writ directing reinstatement of the attempted murder counts.
- The Court held the evidence could support attempted murder because Decker’s acts went beyond solicitation and preparation when coupled with clear intent to kill.
- The Court held solicitation and attempt are distinct offenses; solicitation is complete upon the request, and later conduct may separately satisfy attempt.
- The Court disapproved prior reasoning suggesting that hiring and paying a hit man can never constitute attempted murder.
Legal Principles
- Attempt requires a specific intent to commit the target crime and a “direct but ineffectual act” toward its commission.
- Under the “slight-acts” rule, when intent is clearly shown, relatively minor objective acts may satisfy the act element of attempt.
- Solicitation and attempt are different crimes: solicitation is completed at the time of the request, and a later step toward execution may constitute attempt.
- A defendant’s objective acts are evaluated from the defendant’s viewpoint; the fact that the hired “assassin” is an undercover officer who will not commit the قتل does not defeat attempt liability when the defendant believes the plan will be carried out.
- Conduct such as finalizing the killing arrangement, providing victim-identifying and logistical information, and paying an agreed down payment can be found by a trier of fact to be sufficiently direct to constitute attempted murder.
Conclusion
The court held that a defendant who hires a supposed hit man, provides detailed information to facilitate the killings, and pays a down payment after confirming his intent has taken a direct step toward murder sufficient to support attempted murder charges, and that solicitation does not bar or merge away attempt liability when later conduct satisfies the attempt act requirement.