Opinion ID: 2538643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficient Evidence to Support Premeditation

Text: Next, Hoge argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish premeditation. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, Syl. ¶ 2, 67 P.3d 121 (2003). As stated previously, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of premeditation. Hoge, however, focuses his argument on whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Hadley would shoot Winn. `[P]remeditation is the process of simply thinking about a proposed killing before engaging in the homicidal conduct.' [Citations omitted.] State v. Saleem, 267 Kan. 100, 104, 977 P.2d 921 (1999). Premeditation may be established by circumstantial evidence. but may not be inferred by the use of a deadly weapon alone. Circumstances that may establish premeditation include: `(1) the nature of the weapon used; (2) lack of provocation; (3) the defendant's conduct before and after the killing; (4) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence; and (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.' [Citation omitted.] State v. Murillo, 269 Kan. 281, 286, 7 P.3d 264 (2000). Hoge attempts to add forseeability as a new factor for determining premeditation. We decline to do so.