Opinion ID: 1917141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nature of the Killing

Text: Finally, premeditation may be shown through evidence of the nature of the killing itself. From such evidence that the manner of [the] killing was so particular and exacting, the jury may infer that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design. Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361 (internal quotation omitted). Such evidence includes the number of wounds inflicted, infliction of wounds to vital areas, infliction of gunshot wounds from close range, passage of time between infliction of wounds, and a defendant's concern with escape rather than with rendering aid to the victim. State v. McArthur, 730 N.W.2d 44, 50 (Minn.2007) (concluding there was sufficient evidence of premeditation where the victim was shot from behind, in the head, and from a distance of 12 inches or less). [4] In this case, the evidence showed that Tammy was first shot in the back, while crouched or kneeling, and then shot at close range in the chest  both vital areas of the body. The shotgun was close to Tammy's body when she was shot. An appreciable period of time  up to 5 minutes  elapsed between the first and second shots. Instead of rendering aid to Tammy, neighbors observed appellant fleeing quickly from the house within minutes of the shots. The nature of the killing and appellant's behavior after the shooting support an inference of premeditation. In sum, when we consider the evidence of appellant's planning and motive and the evidence as to the nature of the killing, it is clear that the circumstantial evidence established beyond all reasonable doubt that appellant premeditated the murder. We therefore hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of premeditation.