## Facts

- Joseph (John) Edward Van Ronk sought to buy marijuana from James Gravelle through Gravelle’s sister, Ruth, leading to a dispute about whether Gravelle was “cheating” him.
- Van Ronk returned to Ruth’s apartment with a young woman, Cindy, and remained while Gravelle unsuccessfully tried to locate marijuana.
- Tension escalated when Van Ronk tried to leave with Cindy, Cindy refused, and Gravelle intervened.
- Van Ronk asked Gravelle to go for a ride; Gravelle refused and declined to step outside when Van Ronk acted as if he wanted to fight.
- Van Ronk produced a gun, made a threat consistent with “I should kill you,” and shot Gravelle three times; he also fired at Cindy and Ruth but missed.
- Van Ronk demanded Ruth come out and threatened to shoot her; he left after being given time to depart and after an argument with Cindy about money.
- Gravelle, critically wounded, was taken to a hospital.
- At trial, Van Ronk asserted self-defense, claiming he believed Gravelle likely had a weapon.

## Issues

1. Whether “attempted voluntary manslaughter” is a logically or legally impossible offense, or instead a cognizable crime under California law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held attempted voluntary manslaughter is a valid crime in California.
- The court rejected the claim that the offense is a “logical and legal absurdity,” reasoning voluntary manslaughter involves an intent to kill under mitigating circumstances that negate malice.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires a specific intent to commit the target offense and a direct but ineffectual act toward its commission.
- Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing in which mitigating circumstances (e.g., heat of passion or unreasonable self-defense) negate malice, distinguishing it from murder without eliminating intent to kill.
- Because voluntary manslaughter can rest on an intent to kill, an unsuccessful effort to kill under circumstances that would mitigate a completed homicide supports liability for attempted voluntary manslaughter rather than attempted murder.
- Mitigating circumstances that would reduce a completed homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter may likewise mitigate an attempted killing.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Van Ronk’s conviction, concluding that California law recognizes attempted voluntary manslaughter because an assailant may specifically intend to kill yet act under circumstances that negate malice, permitting mitigation of an attempted homicide in parallel with completed voluntary manslaughter.


People v. Van Ronk, 171 Cal. App. 3d 818, 217 Cal. Rptr. 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)