Modification: People v. Eddy

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MORGAN EASTWOOD EDDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. C085091

(Super. Ct. No. 16F2585)

California Courts of Appeal

Third Appellate District

(Shasta)

Filed April 5, 2019

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND DENYING

REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 26, 2019, be modified as follows:

At the end of the first paragraph of the opinion, place the following footnote:

In his petition for rehearing, defendant correctly argues that if his conviction for first degree murder was not supported by substantial evidence, retrial on that charge would be barred by double jeopardy. (See Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 14-18 [57 L.Ed.2d 1, 11-14]; People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 271-272.) However, the record in this case contains substantial evidence from which a rational jury could find premeditation and deliberation. (See People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 811-813 [reaffirming that premeditation and deliberation may occur quickly].) Viewing the record and rational inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment (id. at pp. 811-812), the heated argument and physical altercation between defendant and the victim ended when defendant agreed to leave. Rather than leaving peacefully, however, the evidence showed that defendant used the pause in the fighting to arm himself with a knife, exit the apartment, and stab the unwitting victim in the side three times, killing him. Defendant then discarded the knife under the kitchen table before fleeing the scene. Thus, defendant's manner of killing, motive, and planning activity support the inference that he acted with " 'preexisting thought and reflection rather than [out of an] unconsidered or rash impulse.' " (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 443; see also Solomon, supra, at p. 812 [noting the relevancy of planning activity, motive, and manner of killing to establish premeditation for first degree murder].) Because we find substantial evidence of first degree premeditated murder, defendant's petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

BY THE COURT:

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

MAURO, J.

KRAUSE, J.