Opinion ID: 1659232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: element of intent

Text: A person commits murder in the second degree if he or she causes the death of a person intentionally, but without premeditation. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-304(1) (Reissue 1995). The intent to kill may be inferred, sufficient to support a murder conviction, from the defendant's deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. State v. Sims, 258 Neb. 357, 603 N.W.2d 431 (1999). Keup's argument with respect to the element of intent is somewhat perplexing. Keup's argument appears to be directed less at the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that Keup acted intentionally than at the district court's purportedly erroneous legal basis for that finding. Nonetheless, we note that to the extent Keup is arguing the evidence of intent was insufficient, that argument is without merit. The district court's factual finding that Keup acted intentionally is supported by competent evidence, described above, which, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. See State v. Harms, 263 Neb. 814, 643 N.W.2d 359 (2002), modified on denial of rehearing 264 Neb. 654, 650 N.W.2d 481. Keup's primary argument seems to be that in making detailed findings of fact for the record, the district court somehow demonstrated a misunderstanding of the element of intent. A review of the district court's findings, however, reveals no error sufficient to overcome the presumption that the district court was familiar with and applied the proper rules of law. See State v. Lyle, 258 Neb. 263, 603 N.W.2d 24 (1999). The district court specifically referred to and relied upon our decision in State v. Rokus, 240 Neb. 613, 483 N.W.2d 149 (1992). In that case, the defendant, Larry Rokus, who was eventually convicted of second degree murder, gave several conflicting versions of how the victim, Joseph Kashuba, was shot in the head at point-blank range. We summarized the interrogation of the defendant as follows: In the course of this interrogation, Rokus said that he had wanted to show Kashuba how to load the .44 Magnum; therefore, he placed six hollow-point bullets in the revolver's cylinder and handed the loaded revolver to Kashuba. As Rokus described the situation, after Kashuba had examined the loaded revolver, he began handing it back to [Rokus], butt first, the barrel towards Mr. Kashuba, and the gun ... discharged. In response to Rokus' description of the shooting, [the interrogating officer] said that in view of the fact that the Magnum was a wheel gun or a cylinder type revolver, [he] had problems with that story. At that point, Rokus acknowledged that he had lied and that the shooting actually occurred as Rokus was demonstrating a quick draw from the shoulder holster, which he was wearing, and when Rokus quick drawed, the revolver discharged the bullet that struck Kashuba. After additional questioning, the interrogation ended. [Later, the interrogating officer] informed Rokus concerning Kashuba's wounds and told Rokus that the account of the shooting related by Rokus in the earlier interrogation was not matching up with the results of the autopsy. Rokus responded that Kashuba was killed while the pair was playing Russian roulette. [The interrogating officer] asked how anyone could play Russian roulette with six bullets in the cylinder chambers of the fatal revolver, and Rokus answered that he and Kashuba were simply pointing the gun at each other's heads and not pulling the trigger. Rokus then told the officers that while engaged in Russian roulette, he pointed the .44 Magnum at Kashuba, and the gun discharged. Rokus maintained that he did not intend to pull the trigger and that the shooting was an accident. Later in the course of this second interrogation, Rokus gave still another version of the shooting: Rokus, while Kashuba had his head turned away from Rokus, took the gun out of the holster, placed it to the back of [Kashuba's] head, and said, Surprise, mother fucker, as Rokus pulled the trigger. Id. at 616-17, 483 N.W.2d at 152. At trial, despite his earlier statements, Rokus testified that Kashuba was sitting in a chair when Rokus approached him from behind, pulled the .44 Magnum from its shoulder holster on Rokus, and then put the revolver to Kashuba's head, `just joking around,' and said, `Surprise,' as the gun discharged. Id. at 619, 483 N.W.2d at 153. Rokus had believed that the revolver was `unloaded' when he put the firearm to Kashuba's head and could not recall whether the revolver had been cocked. Id. On appeal, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We stated: Circumstances surrounding the fatal shot from Rokus' revolver allow and support the inference that Rokus intended to shoot and kill Kashuba. The jury was entitled to find that Kashuba was seated in a dining room chair while Rokus was approaching from behind Kashuba. From the location of the contact wound on Kashuba's head, the jury could infer that the fatal hollow-point bullet was fired at point-blank range from the .44 Magnum's muzzle at the base of Kashuba's skull; hence, Rokus was deliberately pointing the revolver at Kashuba when the weapon discharged. None can argue that a hollow-point bullet fired from a .44 Magnum is not a life-threatening projectile. Intent to kill may be inferred from deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably likely to cause death. State v. Rokus, 240 Neb. 613, 621-22, 483 N.W.2d 149, 154-55 (1992). The pertinence of our decision in Rokus is evident, given the parallel between the issues presented in that case and the instant case. From circumstances around a defendant's voluntary and willful act, a finder of fact may infer that the defendant intended a reasonably probable result of his or her act. See Rokus, supra . The evidence presented in this case indicates that when the weapon was discharged, Keup was deliberately pointing the weapon at Martinez' head, at a distance of 1 to 2 inches, with his finger on the trigger and the hammer cocked. The State's firearms expert, Bohaty, testified that the trigger on the weapon required between 4 to 5.25 pounds of force before the weapon would discharge and that Bohaty was unable to induce an accidental discharge of the weapon. The evidence adequately supports the inference that Keup's firing of the weapon required a conscious and appreciable effort by Keup; thus, Keup's intent to cause Martinez' death may be inferred from the evidence. The district court's reliance on Rokus demonstrates that contrary to Keup's suggestion, the court correctly applied the law to the facts of the instant case with regard to the element of intent. Keup's assignment of error is without merit.