The California Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of Richard Cowan for the first-degree murder of Mario Bullard and multiple counts of attempted murder. The court's decision, filed on October 26, 2026, affirms the jury's findings and addresses Cowan's claims regarding insufficient evidence and trial errors. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of intent in murder and attempted murder cases.

The case, docket number D084049, stems from a series of violent incidents in San Diego involving Cowan. He was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm following a trial that presented evidence of his actions and intent during the events leading to the charges. The court's ruling is particularly relevant for those following criminal justice and the interpretation of intent in legal proceedings.

Background

The People, represented by the California Attorney General's office, charged Cowan with first-degree murder and multiple counts of attempted murder and assault. The incidents occurred between 2019 and 2021, culminating in a jury trial where evidence was presented regarding Cowan's actions and state of mind during the shootings.

Cowan's defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove his intent to kill in the attempted murder charges. They also challenged the trial court's decisions regarding expert testimony on firearm evidence and the jury's understanding of legal definitions related to intent. The case reached the California Court of Appeal after Cowan was convicted and sentenced.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal affirmed Cowan's convictions, stating, "There was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Cowan had the intent to kill victims Joseph M. and Michael H." The court also ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing expert testimony regarding firearm and toolmark comparison evidence, which linked Cowan's firearm to the cartridge casings found at the crime scenes.

Additionally, the court addressed the jury's request for clarification on the definition of "intent to kill." The trial court's response, which referred the jury back to the original instructions, was deemed adequate. The court emphasized that the jury had the necessary information to make an informed decision regarding Cowan's intent.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal standards for proving intent in murder and attempted murder cases. It highlights the court's reliance on substantial evidence to support convictions and the importance of expert testimony in establishing connections between firearms and criminal activity. The decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of intent and the admissibility of forensic evidence.

The ruling also underscores the challenges defendants face when appealing convictions based on claims of insufficient evidence or trial errors. Cowan's case illustrates the complexities involved in interpreting legal definitions and the weight given to expert testimony in criminal trials.

What's Next

Cowan's legal team may seek further appeals, but the California Court of Appeal's decision is a significant hurdle. There are no immediate related cases pending that could influence this ruling, but Cowan's case may continue to be referenced in discussions about intent in criminal law.