In re Wroten on Habeas Corpus CA2/2
B341170
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- David Ray Wroten was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, stemming from a gang-related retaliatory shooting in 2004.
- The shooting occurred in a rival gang territory; Wroten and an associate fired multiple shots at individuals near a car, injuring one (Darden) and missing another (Coleman), who was standing nearby.
- Wroten filed a habeas corpus petition in 2023 to overturn his conviction for the attempted murder of Coleman (count 5), arguing the conviction was invalid under recent case law (People v. Canizales and People v. Mumin) clarifying the "kill zone" doctrine.
- The jury had been instructed on the "kill zone" theory, suggesting Wroten could be found to have intended to kill all persons in the zone to ensure the death of a primary target.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the instruction and conviction remained valid in light of refined legal standards and whether any instructional error was prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the kill zone instruction | Instruction was improperly given and erroneous | Substantial evidence supported intent | Instruction was supported by evidence; error was harmless |
| Specific intent to kill under kill zone theory | No intent to kill Coleman, only Darden | Wroten intended to kill all in the zone | Overwhelming evidence supported concurrent intent |
| Applicability of Canizales/Mumin standards | Standards not met for kill zone liability | Standards were met on these facts | Substantial evidence satisfied requirements |
| Prejudicial error analysis | Inadequate instruction prejudiced the outcome | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Canizales, 7 Cal. 5th 591 (Cal. 2019) (clarified limits and requirements for "kill zone" theory in attempted murder cases)
- People v. Mumin, 15 Cal. 5th 176 (Cal. 2023) (clarified standard of review for kill zone instructions and emphasized requirement of substantial evidence for concurrent intent)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal. 4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (established concurrent intent can support attempted murder for victims within a kill zone)