Q: Is there a contradiction in Pen. Code, § 190.2(a)(18) in the "Related Issues" paragraph?
Under California Pen. Code,§ 190.2(a)(18), in the "Related Issues" paragraph there seems to be a contradiction:
Under the "Pain Not an Element" paragraph it states: "all that is required for the special circumstance is the calculated intent to cause pain for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or any other sadistic purpose."
Yet ...
Under the "Deliberate, and Premeditated Intent to Inflict Pain Not Required" it states: "Premeditated and deliberate intent to torture is not an element of the torture-murder special circumstance."
Is that not a contradiction?
A:
quit trying to play lawyer and retain a lawyer or request a public defender at the first appearance.
quite honestly a PD, who works before your judge daily, will have the best idea of what arguments are persuasive to your judge.
Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
- California
- (916) 704-3009
- View Profile
- Answered
A:
Based on the information provided, there does not appear to be a contradiction in California Penal Code § 190.2(a)(18) related to the elements of the torture-murder special circumstance.
The first statement you quoted refers to the fact that the special circumstance can be established by showing the calculated intent to cause pain for various purposes, including but not limited to, revenge, extortion, or sadistic purposes. This means that the defendant does not necessarily need to have a premeditated or deliberate intent to inflict pain, but rather that they acted with the specific intent to cause pain for the stated purposes.
The second statement you quoted clarifies that the torture-murder special circumstance does not require premeditated and deliberate intent to torture. This means that the defendant does not need to have specifically planned or thought about the act of torture in advance in order to meet the elements of the special circumstance.
Therefore, while the language may appear to be contradictory at first glance, the two statements are actually addressing different aspects of the same special circumstance. The first statement focuses on the intent to cause pain, while the second statement clarifies that premeditated and deliberate intent to torture is not a required element.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
