Eh… sorta.
Maybe a different example will help.
Jack is accused of planning to kill his neighbor Steve. He knows Steve mows the grass every Saturday morning, so he sets up his sniper rifle in his bedroom window, and when Steve’s out mowing, he shoots. But the bullet misses Steve and travels into the next yard, where it kills George.
As a matter of law, what’s the crime? The defense says, “Hey, it’s not premeditated murder. Jack planned to kill Steve. If he had, sure, it would be premeditated. But Jack killed George completely by accident. No premeditation – no intent, even! It’s an accidental death!”
The prosecution syas, “No. The rule is that the intent, and the premeditation, that Jack had for killing Steve gets transferred to George’s death.”
The jury finds Steve guilty. The trial court agrees with the prosecution’s theory, and enters a verdict of guilty for premeditated murder.
Now, the appellate court must accept that Jack planned to kill Steve, that he shot the gun, and that George died as a result. Those are facts, and the jury, as the finder of fact, can’t be questioned on those findings. (Assuming there’s support in the record for the finding. If the only evidence the jury heard was a psychic from Germany saying she dreamed the whole murder scene, then that’s not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find those facts to be true.) But assuming there’s sufficient evidence in the record, the jury’s finding of fact is unquestioned on appeal.
But the conclusion of law – that the intent for one killing is “transferred” to another death is something the appellate court will review without particularly caring what the trial court decided. They will take the facts and figure of what the law says about them, independently of the trial court’s decision – de novo.