Court Opinion

ID: 9536014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:53:13.255779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:25.524743
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
This is a case in which appellant was convicted of first degree murder because the difference between first and second degree murder was so blurred by the law given the jury as to become indistinguishable. The confusion resulted from the use of the defining word “deliberate” in defining premeditation.
Wyoming’s first degree murder statute, W.S. 6-2-101, provides that whoever
(a) purposely
(b) with premeditated
(c) malice
kills any human being is guilty of murder in the first degree.
Wyoming’s second degree murder statute, W.S. 6-2-104, provides that whoever
(a) purposely
(b) without premeditation
(c) maliciously
kills any human being is guilty of murder in the second degree.
The jury in this case was instructed, as a matter of law, that “deliberate” is both to premeditate and to act with purpose. And of course, “deliberate” can mean to premeditate and act with purpose. The same word, spelled the same way, can have two different meanings. It is confusing, and that becomes of enormous significance in *768this case because the only difference between first and second degree murder is premeditation. If the jury could believe from the court’s instructions on the law that premeditation and purposeful are the same because they are defined as “deliberate,” then there is no difference between first and second degree murder.
In Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202 (Wyo.1986), the blurring of the difference between first and second degree murder was discussed in the context of improperly permitting a jury instruction, stating that premeditation required no period of time for thought but could be instantaneous. Thus, it was said,
This, in turn, blurs the distinction between first and second degree murder, a distinction the legislature has based entirely on the difference between premeditation and intent.
“[T]he classical and traditional Wyoming statutory first degree murder language and its meaning [are] fairly well settled.” T. Lauer, Goodbye 3-Card Monte: The Wyoming Criminal Code of 1982, 19 Land & Water L.Rev. 107, 121 (1984).
“ ‘It requires that there should be time and opportunity for deliberate thought, and that after the mind has conceived the thought of taking life, the thought is meditated upon and a deliberate determination formed to do the act. This being done, it makes no difference how soon afterwards the fatal resolve is carried into execution. There need be no specific period of time between the formation of the intention in the mind to kill and the killing so long as there was some time for deliberation.’ ” Cloman v. State, Wyo., 574 P.2d 410, 419 (1978), citing State v. Riggle, 76 Wyo. 1, 298 P.2d 349, 367 (1956).
Murry, 713 P.2d at 214 (Cardine; J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). The need for some time for premeditation before acting was thereafter reviewed again in Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486 (Wyo.1992), and the court’s discussion in that case is recommended in framing future jury instructions.
Back to the case at hand. There is no longer a reason to continue using the word “deliberate” to define premeditation. Some words are so well understood by all that definition is not required. I believe that premeditation is one of those words; but if further definition is necessary, the words “thought about beforehand” as further defining premeditation are suggested.
Nothing is more important in a civilized society than that we effectively communicate with each other. Ordinarily we communicate with words, tone of voice, gestures, and body language. Appellate court judges communicate in writing only, with words. As appellate court judges, our life is about “words.” We continually search for the right word, for upon that word may rest life or death for one of our fellow citizens. We strive always for simplicity, brevity, for the correct word, and forever to avoid confusion. In this case, the jury was advised that to deliberate is to premeditate, and to be deliberate is to be purposeful. Appellant was convicted of first degree murder. The use of deliberate as a defining word is confusing and unnecessary. It should be avoided in the future.
Appellant was given a life sentence. In our state, life is life. Unless there is a commutation by the Governor, he will be in prison for all of his life. Perhaps he should be there for life. Perhaps not. In this case we can never know whether, under proper instructions, the conviction might have been second degree murder which carries a sentence of 20 years to life in prison.
For the reasons stated, I would reduce this conviction to second degree murder and, absent that, would reverse.