People v. Pham
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 458
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pham was convicted of second-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, and sentenced to 79 years to life.
- Shooting events: Hickman killing and Caymus Drive drive-by, with gunfire affecting bystanders and injuries to two people; ballistics linked both shootings to the same gun.
- Pham admitted to deputies that he fired at the Caymus Drive crowd, but claimed others drove and pulled the trigger; jury rejected his account.
- The record shows he fired into a group he believed contained two teenagers who allegedly damaged his mother’s van; the intended victims were not present.
- The appellate court affirmed the attempted murder convictions but modified the sentence by striking a firearm-use enhancement on the dwelling offense; other claims were rejected or left unresolved in published portions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Pham argues transferred intent applies; the intended victims were not present. | People allegedly used concurrent "kill zone" theory to convict. | Convictions upheld; impossibility rule supports liability; not required to prove exact targets present. |
| Firearm-use enhancement on discharging at an inhabited dwelling | Pham challenges firearm enhancement as improper when firearm use is an element. | Invalid enhancement should be struck. | Strike the firearm-use enhancement on count four; modify judgment accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (discusses transfer vs. concurrent intent in attempted murder)
- People v. Reed, 53 Cal.App.4th 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (factual impossibility not a defense to attempt)
- People v. Siu, 126 Cal.App.2d 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) (attempt liability despite impossibility of completion)
- People v. Grant, 105 Cal.App.2d 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951) (guilt of attempt does not require present ability)
- People v. Vang, 87 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (illustrates concurrent intent based on surrounding circumstances)