Evidence of Premeditation Sufficient

Loving v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 3/22/2017.   A jury convicted Mr. Loving of first degree premeditated murder, and some other crimes not pertinent to this combined direct appeal/post conviction appeal. Apparently over an $80.00 debt, Mr. Loving shot and killed Gilbert Jordon.  Mr. Jordon had nothing do do with the dispute over the debt between Mr. Loving and Mr. Jordon's brother.

On appeal Mr. Loving said that the state had failed to prove premeditation.  Justice Stras went through the facts and applied them to the standard issue law on proof of premeditation and concluded that the state had met its burden.

Several basic principles about premeditation guide our analysis. First, we have explained that, although a defendant does not have to engage in extensive planning or deliberate for a specific amount of time, the formation of intent and premeditation cannot occur simultaneously. State v. Hurd, 819 N.W.2d 591, 599 (Minn. 2012). Instead, the State must prove that, “ ‘after the defendant formed the intent to kill, some appreciable  time passed during which the consideration, planning, preparation or determination . . . prior to the commission of the act took place.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 361 (Minn. 1992)). Second, we examine the evidence as a whole, including the actions taken by the defendant before and after the crime, to determine whether premeditation existed. See id. Three categories of evidence are particularly helpful in evaluating whether premeditation existed: planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing. Id.

Mr. Loving had wanted to introduce evidence of other past violent incidents at the gas station where all this took place.  The difficulty for Mr. Loving, which caused the trial court to deny his request to introduce this evidence, was that he presented no evidence that he had participated in any of these events, that he knew anyone who had done so, or that he was even aware of these incidents.  The upshot was that none of this evidence supported explained what was going through his mind when he fired off the seven rounds.

Finally, Mr. Loving complained that he should have been given the non-testimonial portion of the grand jury transcript.  Mr. Loving had sought the transcript to pursue a prosecutorial misconduct argument.  The trial court reviewed the transcript and pronounced that there was no evidence of such misconduct and so the court denied the request.  It's not clear whether Mr. Loving got the testimony of any witnesses who testified at the grand jury and at trial, which the rules say he is entitled to just by asking:

Once a defendant files a motion, the court must order the disclosure of, among other things, the “defendant’s grand jury testimony”; “the grand jury testimony of witnesses the prosecutor intends to call at the defendant’s trial”; and in limited circumstances, “the grand jury testimony of any witness” the defendant expects will give “relevant and favorable testimony for the defendant.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 18.04, subd. 2. If the requested portions of the transcript fall into one or more of the designated categories, then the court must order the release of those portions of the transcript upon motion by the defendant, subject to a protective order, and no showing of good cause is necessary to obtain them. Id.