Opinion ID: 1172674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 36

Heading: jury instructions on premeditation and intent

Text: (11) Whether the terms premeditation and intent were sufficiently explained in the trial court's instructions to the jury. Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury that premeditation and intent are separate elements of aggravated first degree murder. He assigns error to the court giving Instruction 11 defining premeditation: Premeditation means thought over beforehand. When a person, after any deliberation, forms an intent to take human life, the killing may follow immediately after the formation of the settled purpose and it will still be premeditated. Premeditation must involve more than a moment in point of time. The law requires some time, however long or short, in which a design to kill is deliberately formed. [212] Instruction 11 is Washington Pattern Instruction (Criminal) (WPIC) 26.01, which we have upheld in other capital cases. [213] Appellant objected to Instruction 11 at trial and argues the trial court should instead have given his proposed Instruction 7 which read: Intent and premeditation are not synonymous. Premeditation cannot simply be inferred from the existence of a criminal intent. Premeditation involves the mental process of thinking beforehand, deliberation, reflection, weighing or reasoning for a period of time, however short. Although no specific period of time is required, sufficient time must have elapsed to allow deliberate formation of the intent to act and reflection upon the act intended. Premeditation necessarily involves an appreciable length of time. [214] Errors in instructions are reviewed de novo. [215] Jury instructions are to be read as a whole and each instruction is read in the context of all others given. [216] [A] specific instruction need not be given when a more general instruction adequately explains the law and enables the parties to argue their theories of the case. [217] The court need not give a party's proposed instruction if it is repetitious or collateral to instructions already given. [218] A review of the instructions given in this case satisfies us the trial court did not err. In addition to Instruction 11, the court defined intent in Instruction 26, WPIC 10.01, which reads: A person acts with intent or intentionally when acting with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime. [219] Instruction 26 is almost identical to RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). [220] The court also gave Instruction 10: To convict the defendant of the crime of first-degree premeditated murder, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 24th day of May, 1991, the defendant caused the death of Holly Washa; (2) That the defendant acted with intent to cause the death of Holly Washa; (3) That the intent to cause the death was premeditated; and (4) That the acts occurred in King County, Washington. If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. A reading of Instructions 10, 11 and 26 indicates the court instructed the jury that premeditation and intent were separate elements of aggravated first degree murder. [221] The instructions adequately follow the law in defining premeditation and intent. The trial court thus was not required to give Appellant's proposed Instruction 7. The court did not commit reversible error in giving Instruction 11 and refusing to give Appellant's proposed Instruction 7.