Opinion ID: 1161781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reflection

Text: The trial judge gave the following instruction on first degree murder: 12. The crime of first-degree murder requires proof of the following three things: 1. The defendant caused the death of another person; and 2. The defendant intended or knew that he would cause the death of another person; and 3. The defendant acted with premeditation. Premeditation means the defendant's intention or knowledge existed before the killing long enough to permit reflection. However, the time for reflection must be longer than the time merely required to form the intent or knowledge that the conduct would cause death. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. (Emphasis added). After some deliberation, the jury requested a definition of the term reflection contained in the instruction. Defendant requested that the judge instruct the jury that reflection included meditation. The trial judge disagreed and instructed the jury as follows: The definition of reflection which would apply here is a thought, idea or opinion formed as a result of deliberation or serious consideration. However, you are cautioned that reflection as used in the instruction on first-degree murder means a mental process which is longer and more serious than merely needed to form intention. We agree with the trial judge. At the trial, the judge indicated the inclusion of meditation in the definition would have erroneously conveyed to the jury that reflection require some long and deep meditating thought. This is inconsistent with the element of first degree murder that only requires premeditation. We find no error.