Opinion ID: 1415085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: murder in the first degree with special circumstances.

Text: A. MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE DURING THE COURSE OF A KIDNAPPING. 1. That the deceased, Lloyd Witt and Ray Davis came to their death on or about the 27th of December 1973; 2. That they were killed by the defendants charged; 3. That the killing was done purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate a robbery; 4. That the crime was committed in Laramie County, Wyoming; 5. That the killing was done during the course of a kidnapping; 6. That each defendant did aid and abet the other defendant in the murder with premeditated malice of Lloyd Witt and Ray Davis, or that each defendant did aid and abet the other defendant in the murder of Lloyd Witt and Ray Davis in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate a robbery. Paragraph B of the Instruction reads the same except it refers to murder in the first degree of two or more persons in a series of related events. Deleting the fifth paragraph of the Instruction, thus avoiding the unconstitutional aggravating circumstances, i.e. kidnapping and in a series of related events (§ 6-54(b)(vii) and (x)), it is observed that all of the essential elements of § 6-54(a) are retained. Included in the retention is paragraph 3, that the killing was done purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate a robbery. After excising paragraph 5 in the Instruction, there still remains a disjunctive. Did the jury find evidence of premeditated murder or felony-murder in the commission of a robbery, or both? The proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 312, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1073, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1956). The dilemma in Yates is not present in this case. As the court said in United States v. Natelli, 527 F.2d 311, 325 (2d Cir.1975), cert. den. 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1663, 48 L.Ed.2d 829:    Inasmuch as the evidence was sufficient to support Natelli's conviction on either specification, the charge given presents no problem to affirmance as to him. In other words, this court is convinced that the facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom amply justified the holding that the jury found both premeditated murder and felony-murder in the commission of a robbery. To substantiate that, and the Natelli statement, a review of some of the facts in this record is necessary.