California v. Warner
Annotate this CaseOn a Saturday night of a long July 4th holiday weekend, defendant Shane Warner took a semiautomatic hand gun, concealed in his waistband into a bar. He shot across the bar’s semidark dance floor, illuminated by a strobe light, at I. Smith, who had attacked him a few weeks earlier. Defendant emptied the gun’s clip of 10 bullets and wounded, but did not kill his primary target, Smith, and wounded, but did not kill an innocent bystander, N.C. Defendant claimed to have acted in self-defense, but there was no evidence that Smith was armed. The prosecution charged defendant with two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, the latter predicated on a "kill zone" theory. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted murder of Smith, acquitted him of the attempted murder of N.C., but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 22 years in prison. Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter; he argued it was error to allow the prosecution to infer intent from a “kill zone” theory, and to so instruct the jury. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecutor to argue defendant intended to kill N.C. under a “kill zone” theory, and in so instructing the jury. Even though the sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter was stayed, defendant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, raising the issue of the “kill zone” instruction. The Supreme Court granted review, and directed the Court of Appeal to vacate its decision and reconsider the case in light of California v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (2019), decided after the appellate court's opinion was filed. After reconsidering the matter, judgment was again affirmed, and the case remanded to allow the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the sentencing enhancement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.