CALCRIM No. 600 adequately state the mens rea for attempted murder and an explanation regarding express malice is not needed. Appellant was convicted of attempted murder based on firing seven shots at guests leaving a party. He argued on appeal that CALCRIM No. 600 inadequately defines the target crime of murder because, unlike CALJIC No. 8.66, there is no mention of malice aforethought. The court held the instruction is not deficient. CALCRIM No. 600 correctly instructs that attempted murder requires “the defendant intended to kill [a] person.” “Intent to unlawfully kill and express malice are, in essence, ‘one and the same.'” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733.)
Sufficient evidence supports the attempted murder conviction. Appellant argued insufficient evidence of intent to kill because he fired the shots at night from a distance while sitting in his car. The court rejected the claim. Appellant fired seven shots, and the victim testified they whistled past him. Intent to kill could be inferred from these circumstances.