## Facts

- In the early morning of January 13, 1991, a brown van drove through the Hunter’s Point area of San Francisco and slowed near a group of youths listening to music on the street.
- Shots were fired from the van; the victim, a 15-year-old boy, was shot twice from behind and later died during surgery.
- The shooting was prosecuted as gang-related; the prosecution alleged Swain and Chatman participated in the drive-by.
- While jailed, Swain reportedly bragged to other inmates that he had shot the victim from the van while it was moving uphill.
- The prosecution pursued murder and conspiracy-to-commit-murder theories; the jury received instructions on both express-malice (intent-to-kill) and implied-malice (conscious-disregard) murder.
- For the conspiracy count, the jury was instructed that the “target offense” was second-degree murder, which could be based on either express or implied malice.

## Issues

1. Whether conspiracy to commit murder requires proof of intent to kill.
2. Whether a conspiracy conviction may be based on implied-malice second-degree murder.
3. Whether conspiracy convictions may stand when instructions permitted an implied-malice theory and the jury returned general verdicts.

## Decision

- The court held that conspiracy is a specific-intent offense requiring both intent to agree and intent to commit the target crime.
- The court held that conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to kill and cannot be premised on implied malice.
- The court reversed the conspiracy-to-commit-murder convictions because the instructions allowed the jury to convict on an invalid implied-malice conspiracy theory and the general verdicts did not show the jury found intent to kill.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy requires specific intent: an intent to agree and an intent to commit the target offense.
- For conspiracy to commit murder, the required target-offense intent is intent to kill (express malice).
- Implied malice (a killing from dangerous conduct in conscious disregard of life) does not supply the intent necessary for conspiracy to commit murder.
- When jury instructions permit conviction on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory and the verdict is general, the conviction cannot stand unless the reviewing court can determine beyond a reasonable doubt the jury relied on the valid theory.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that conspiracy to commit murder in California demands proof of intent to kill and cannot be grounded in implied malice; because the jury instructions permitted an implied-malice route to a conspiracy verdict and the verdicts did not specify the theory used, the conspiracy convictions were reversed and the case was remanded.


People v. Swain, 12 Cal. 4th 593 (Cal. 1996)