Attorney Ronald D. Hedding of Hedding Law Firm recently completed a multi-week jury trial in Van Nuys Superior Court involving six counts of attempted murder with firearm enhancement allegations, arising out of a shooting incident.

From the outset, Mr. Hedding built a defense around a single, focused theory of the case rather than a scattered approach, and structured the entire trial — from jury selection through closing argument — around the evidence that supported it.

Midway through the trial, Mr. Hedding moved for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1, arguing the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence on one of the counts. The court agreed, and that count was dismissed before the case ever reached the jury.

Voluntary Intoxication Defense

On the remaining counts, Mr. Hedding centered the defense on the specific intent element the prosecution was required to prove: that his client intended to kill when the shots were fired.

Toxicology evidence showed the client had consumed narcotics before the incident, and Mr. Hedding used that evidence to raise a voluntary intoxication defense, arguing his client was incapable of forming the specific intent necessary for attempted murder.

He also identified that the pattern jury instruction addressing unconsciousness did not itself define the term, and successfully used the definition from a separate, related instruction to frame the concept in a way that fit his client's circumstances.

Blocking "Kill Zone" Theory

Mr. Hedding also moved to block the prosecution from arguing a “kill zone” theory, which would have allowed the jury to find intent to kill based on the theory that the defendant intended to kill everyone within a given area rather than a specific target.

Keeping that instruction from reaching the jury removed a significantly easier path to conviction for the prosecution.

The jury ultimately rejected the attempted murder charges. On four counts, the jury returned verdicts on the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon rather than attempted murder, and on one remaining count the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

 Mr. Hedding continues to represent the client going forward, including on the count still pending resolution.

Every case turns on its own facts, and a result like this one depends on the specific evidence, charges, and circumstances involved. This description is not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of any other case.

Anyone facing similar charges should discuss the specific facts of their situation with an attorney directly at the Hedding Law Firm.