Opinion ID: 2281685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence sufficient to support first-degree murder

Text: Tyrone challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the first-degree murder conviction. He argues the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyrone knowingly caused Miles' death after deliberation upon the matter. See § 565.020.1, RSMo 2000. Deliberation is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief.... § 565.002(3), RSMo 2000. Proof of deliberation does not require proof that the defendant contemplated his actions over a long period of time.... State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 747 (Mo. banc 1997). Deliberation, like most elements of mens rea, must ordinarily be proved through proof of the circumstances surrounding the killing. State v. O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d 212, 218-19 (Mo. banc 1993). Without evidence of deliberation, an intentional killing is second-degree murder.... State v. Cole, 71 S.W.3d 163, 169 (Mo. banc 2002). Tyrone argues that no other reasonable inference can be drawn but that he was acting under the influence of a violent anger or passion when he shot Miles and was not acting out of deliberation. In support, he notes it was undisputed that he had just received a head injury and that he recklessly drove the car backward down the street toward his house to retrieve his shotgun. While this evidence may have permitted the jury to determine that he shot and killed his cousin in the heat of anger or passion, it did not require the jury to reach this determination. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's determination beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot and killed Miles after deliberation, that is, after cool reflection, no matter how brief. In particular, the state presented evidence that the fighting between Tyrone and Miles stopped once Miles' mother separated them and Miles retreated into the house. Tyrone, therefore, had ample opportunity to terminate the confrontation. State v. Norman, 243 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Mo.App.2007) (deliberation may be inferred when a perpetrator has ample opportunity to terminate the crime). Instead, Tyrone threatened Miles, saying, I'm going to hurt you real bad. State v. Overkamp, 646 S.W.2d 733, 737 (Mo.1983) (Previous threats by the accused to kill the deceased are admissible to show malice and premeditation or state of mind). Tyrone then got in his car and drove home. Rather than staying in this safe location, Tyrone got his gun and drove back to the scene of the altercation. Such a time lapse between the threat and the shooting would have established a period of deliberation. Rhodes v. State, 157 S.W.3d 309, 313 (Mo.App.2005). Where the defendant commits a murder which, because of the particular method of attack, required some time to complete, this Court has permitted an inference of deliberation. O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d at 219. Tyrone's choice not to return empty-handed but to bring a deadly weapon with him as he went back to confront his cousin also supports the jury's finding of deliberation. State v. Stacy, 913 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Mo.App.1996) (bringing a deadly weapon to the commission of a crime supports a finding of deliberation). Tyrone then kicked down his cousin's front door and fired his shotgun directly at Miles from only 3 to 5 yards away. The shot caused serious injury to Miles' left lung and major blood vessels of the left shoulder. It fractured facial bones, causing a disfiguration of Miles' chin. Instead of calling for help when he saw how seriously Miles was injured, Tyrone fled the scene while exclaiming, I got him. I got him. [F]ailure to seek medical help for a victim strengthens the inference that the defendant deliberated. State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702, 717 (Mo. banc 2004). There was substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the element of deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt.