Court Opinion

ID: 9550827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:05.545615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:31.088698
License: Public Domain

*261WOLFE, Justice
(concurring in the result by special opinion).
I concur in the decision part of the opinion ordering a reversal and new trial, but I think my reasons are so different from those of the Chief Justice that I prefer to state them independently of the prevailing opinion.
There were no degrees of murder at common law. Most, if not all, of the states, including Utah, now have by statute separated the crime of murder into degrees. Section 103-28-8, U. C. A. 1943, and predecessor statutes, have divided first degree murder into four categories. These four categories were discussed at some length in State v. Russell, 106 Utah 116, 145 P. 2d 1003. For ready reference, I quote (with the addition of the numbers in parentheses) Section 103-28-3, U. C. A. 1943, which sets out the four categories of first degree murder and defines second degree murder.
“(1) Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing; or
“(2) committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary or robbery; or
“(3) perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than the one who is killed; or
“(4) perpetrated by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others and evidencing a depraved mind, regardless of human life; —is murder in the first degree.
“Any other homicide committed under such circumstances as would have constituted murder at common law is murder in the second degree.”
The difficulty comes in second degree murder. The provision defining second degree murder is a residual provision. The first part of Section 103-28-3, picks out some of the killings which were murder at the common law and classifies them largely according to the mental element which attended the outward and visible element of the *262crime. Having picked out some murders and set them off as first degree murders, the legislature placed all of the other killings which were committed under such circumstances as would have constituted murder in the common law into a category designated as second degree murder.
Within the residual provision of second degree murder fall killings which were committed in the act of perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate common law felonies, (at least those which were dangerous) except the four felonies, of violence named in category (2) of first degree murder. For example, a killing committed while doing or attempting to do any of the following crimes, to wit, performing an illegal abortion, mayhem, kidnapping, assault with intent to do great bodily -harm, etc.
“The rule of the common law was that when death occurred by the act of one who was in pursuit of an unlawful design, without any intention to kill it would be either murder or manslaughter, according to whether the intended offense was a felony or only a misdemeanor.” See Sec. 74, Vol. 1, Permanent Edition, Warren on Homicide.
Whether a killing committed in the perpetration of a felony malum prohibitum rather than malum in se was murder in the common law is here unnecessary to determine. In Michigan it was held that
“death caused without intent after a sale of moonshine liquor, which sale was statutory felony, was not deemed murder for the reason that the sale was not an inherently dangerous common law felony.” See Warren, Section 74, and People v. Pavlic, 227 Mich. 562, 199 N. W. 373, 35 A. L. R. 741.
Under our law, second degree murder would have to be a homicide committed under such circumstances as would have constituted murder at common law and not covered by the definition of first degree murder. Since to commit murder in the second degree there must be an unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, the malice is shown by the pursuit of the unlawful design of committing a felony *263other than the four specifically named felonies in category (2) of Section 103-28-3 at least common law felonies involving danger or violence. Of course the malice as to the four specific felonies named in category (2) was likewise supplied.
Also under our decisions those cases of homicide where there has not been the ability, absent insanity, to formulate a specific intent to kill fall under second degree murder. State v. Stenback, 78 Utah 350, 2 P. 2d 1050, 79 A. L. R. 878, (whether or not they will exactly fit the content of the residual provision of Section 103-28-3). Also under second degree murder fall those cases where extenuating circumstances attend the killing such as in the case of State v. Anselmo, 46 Utah 137, 148 P. 1071.
Cases where there is an intent to kill, but the intent is a sudden one or one which arises out of some sudden loss of emotional control, or is due to an ungovernable temper easily set off, but not attendant on a quarrel or arising from heat of passion when the provocation is not as considerable as is needed to reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter, would fall under second degree murder. Also included in second degree murder are cases where there has been an intent to kill but not in cold blood and yet not in such hot blood as would make the killing a product of the passion which might bring it under voluntary manslaughter, but as expressed in State v. Thompson, 110 Utah 113, 170 P. 2d 153, in the “cool blood.” The reasoning is that the elements of
“ ‘deliberate’ and ‘premeditated’ not only negative the idea of hurried thoughtless action in the face of an unexpected situation, but reasonably imply some opportunity for careful thought and weighing of various considerations as well as the presence of some plan or design, though length of time available for deliberation is not the controlling element so much as is extent of the reflection, in which connection age and experience of defendant should be considered.” People v. Nichols, 88 Cal. App. 2d 221, 198 P. 2d 538.
*264In this very recent California case of People v. Nichols, supra, a 13 year old girl with a mental age of 11 was mentally and emotionally defective and had a natural tendency of cruelty toward animals and was going through a period of extreme mental and emotional stress in the course of her physical development. She killed a girl of five years of age who resisted her attempts to engage the five year old in sex play.
In People v. Bender, 27 Cal. 2d 164, 163 P. 2d 8, 17, it was held that in a murder prosecution an instruction was erroneous which informed the jury that under certain circumstances killing is murder in the second degree unless
“the evidence proves the existence in the mind of the slayer of the specific intent to take life. If such specific intent exists at the time of such unlawful killing, the offense committed would of course be murder in the first degree.”
because of the use of the quoted language since “specific intent” is not necessarily a willful, “deliberate” and “premeditated” intent which is essential to make homicide murder in the first degree.
It can be seen from the above that in second degree murder there may be but must not necessarily be the specific intent to kill and yet not under the circumstances with which the law intended to clothe first degree murder under category (1). Second degree murder has been used as a catch-all when the killing was not done upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, and thus was not voluntary manslaughter nor did not fit categories (2), (3) and (4) of Section 103-28-3, nor rise to the gravity of “deliberate” and “premeditated” murder specified in category (1).
Consequently, as a practical matter, it is necessary to define second degree murder in a negative way. What we should strive to achieve in the giving of instructions in murder cases is to convey to the jury in clear language the law applicable to the facts of the case which is presented to it *265under all the theories which are reasonably tenable in view of the evidence. I think that the best way to do that is generally as follows: First, instruct the jurors as to the definition of murder which, of course, is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Then if the defendant is charged with first degree murder instruct them only as to the categories which, under the evidence, may be applicable. For instance, it would be foolish where the death was caused by sending the party poison candy by mail to instruct the jury on categories (2), (3) and (4). Category (1) could in such case be cut down to read “every murder perpetrated by poison” leaving out the remainder of category (1). Also, in such case, no choice should be left to the jury to find whether it was first or second degree murder. The only defense would be insanity; otherwise, it would be first degree murder in law. Of course, the jury could not be directed to find a verdict of guilty of first degree murder. See State v. Kappel, 53 N. Mex. 181, 204 P. 2d 443, where the Supreme Court of New Mexico pointed out under what circumstances an instruction on second degree murder would not be necessary. After the jury is instructed as to all the categories of first degree murder which under any theory could be reasonably applicable to the evidence, the judge should instruct that if the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was first degree murder, but was convinced that the killing was done with malice aforethought as defined in its instructions relating to malice aforethought, the jury could find the defendant guilty of second degree murder. State v. Kappel, supra, presents a ease wherein the court held that an instruction as to second degree murder could not be dispensed with because, under the evidence, the case was not one of first degree murder in law and hence the jury must be permitted to make the choice and thus must be instructed as to second degree murder. An examination of the evidence in that case emphasizes the simplicity and the practicality *266of instructing the jury as to second degree murder in a negative fashion, i. e. if they find that the killing was not first degree murder according to one or more of the applicable categories of first degree murder in regard to which it has been instructed and yet they believe the killing was with malice aforethought, they should find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. Of course, if by any reasonable view of the evidence and inference therefrom, the jury acting as reasonable men could, if they failed to find the defendant guilty of first or second degree murder, find him guilty of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, instructions as to the law of such homicides should be given.
The definition of murder in the second degree given by the lower court in this case was as follows:
“So far as you are concerned in the determination of this case, murder in the second degree is the unlawful slaying of a human being where the slayer before the commission of the act resulting in death had a specific design or intention thought out beforehand to cause great bodily injury to the deceased or an intention or design thought out beforehand to do an act knowing the reasonable and natural consequences thereof would be likely to cause great bodily injury to the deceased.”
In so instructing, I am of the opinion that the trial court attempted to follow the reasoning of our decision in State v. Russell as he understood it. I believe, however, that he wrongly gained the impression from that case that one could not be guilty of second degree murder if the content of the malice included an intent to kill, but that it would then in all cases have to be first degree murder. This impression probably arose from the following language of the Russell opinion, to wit:
“As pointed out before, it is not necessary in order to commit murder in the second degree, to have a specific intention or design to kill. Under the facts and circumstances in this case all that is necessary in order to constitute murder in the second degree is that the defendant, when he struck the fatal blow, had a specific design *267or intention, thought out beforehand, to cause great bodily injury to the deceased, or an intention or design thought out beforehand to do an act, knowing the reasonable and natural consequences thereof, would be likely to cause great bodily injury to the deceased. See authorities hereinabove cited on what constitutes murder. It was not necessary for the defendant to have a specific intention to kill the deceased in order to commit murder in the second degree and the court erred in instructing the jury that it was.” 106 Utah 116, 145 P. 2d 1003, 1009.
Evidently the lower court thought the statement in the Russell case that
“it is not necessary in order to commit murder in the second degree, to have a specific intention or design to kill”
implied that if there was any intention to kill regardless of circumstances which preceded the actual killing it must necessarily be first degree murder. I do not think that this court in the Russell opinion so meant to hold. In State v. Thompson, 110 Utah 113, 170 P. 2d 153, 157, we recognized that there could be in second degree murder an intent to kill but not rising to the level of a premeditated intent or one which was reflected upon. It was there said,
“In the Russell case we did not emphasize the requirement [in first category of first degree murder] that there must be a cool and careful consideration of the intention to kill.”
It was there stated:
“If murder in the first degree under this category requires a more cool consideration in forming the required plan, design and intention than does murder in the second degree, then it can be readily understood why the mind might be incapable of giving the required cool and calm consideration required for murder in the first degree under this category and still be capable of forming the necessary plan, design and intention to commit murder in the second degree. The fact that the term deliberation is used in defining murder in the first degree, and the fact that four terms are repeated one after the other with similar meaning indicates an intention to emphasize that there must be a cool, careful consideration of the plans before murder in the first degree under this category can be committed. We also held that there is no definitely fixed length of time required to ponder *268or consider such question but there must be sufficient time under the circumstances of the case so that the defendant can formulate such plan, design and intention and cooly weigh and consider the same.”
In the instant case there was a general melee in which four persons were involved. They had been drinking together sometime before and had separated and then came together again on Highway U-10. It is difficult to find a motive for Trujillo’s killing of Lopez. Trujillo and Mon-dragon were in one car and Lopez, the deceased, and Herrera in the other car. Doubtless, the gun from which the fatal bullets were fired was thrown from the car occupied by Trujillo and Mondragon in an effort to get rid of incriminating evidence, and a story was concocted to establish an alibi. When that was found useless, they accused each other of the killing. While I think the conflict of evidence on the issue of whether Trujillo or Mondragon fired the shot could be resolved by the jury, perhaps to a point beyond a reasonable doubt, I note that Mondragon testified that he did not get out of Trujillo’ car until he heard a shot fired and that then he saw Trujillo and Herrera talking. He has himself in Trujillo’s car at the time the first shot was fired. He says that he then got out and that he passed Trujillo who was standing in front and to the left of the Lopez car; that after he passed the defendant he heard another shot which came from somewhere behind him and looked back and saw the defendant coming from the direction of the Lopez car.
Herrera said he did not see Lopez after the fight began. After he and Trujillo wrestled and Trujillo hit him in the stomach and while in the dizzy condition from that blow he heard a shot and judging from the flame from the gun it appeared to be directed toward him. He testified that he then heard two more shots and saw the defendant go from the Lopez car to his own car and get in it and drive away. Herrera corroborated Mondragon as to Trujillo’s standing on the left and front of Lopez’s car. Trujillo testified that Mondragon fired five shots from the gun which he had taken *269from the glove compartment of defendant’s car; upon hearing the shots he let go of Herrera and saw Lopez fall on the highway; that Mondragon called for him to leave whereupon he went to the car and drove away. It seems to me, under the evidence of the drinking and of the melee in the neighborhood of the two cars and conflicting evidence, that even if the jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, which evidently it did, that Trujillo committed the killing, the jury should have been given an opportunity to determine whether the killing did not fall under second degree murder. And for that purpose, the definition of second degree murder should not have been narrowed down to include only an intent to do great bodily harm but'should have defined in terms of its residual aspects.
The court’s instructions, I think, clearly state the law as to first degree murder applicable to this case, that is, the law as announced in category (1) of Section 103-28-3. By the alternates set out in Instruction No. 6, the court instructed not in the abstract as in Instruction No. 2, but in connection with supposed possible different theories under the evidence. My doubt is as to whether the evidence would be susceptible of a theory of deliberate killing under category (3) of Section 103-28-3. By instruction No. 7 the court in applying the definition of second degree murder given in Instruction No. 2 to the concrete evidence made the same mistake which I think was made in Instruction No. 2. He constricted the area of possible second degree murder in this case to the narrow question of whether the defendant shot Lopez with an intent to do great bodily harm or an intent to kill. This would introduce in many cases, if not in this one, a question which it would be most difficult to determine. Wharton in Vol. 1, Section 515 — 12th Edition, states,
“murder in the second degree includes all cases of common law murder where the intention was not to take life, of which murder, when the intent was only to do great bodily hurt may be taken as the leading illustration.” (Emphasis added.)
*270He thus made this only the leading example of those cases of felony at common law (exclusive of arson, burglary, rape and robbery) where a concomitant killing made such killing murder at common law. He does not balance on the knife edge of a mental element (the intent as to what the perpetrator wanted to accomplish) the question of whether the crime falls in first or second degree murder.
A man’s life should not hang on what in many cases could be only a guess and the jury should not be confronted with the responsibility of making a guess where the consequences of the guess might be whether the accused lived or died. In this case the jury from the path into which the bullet was directed in the body might be able to infer that it was intended to accomplish death; that if the mental resolve were only to accomplish bodily harm it would not have been directed so accurately in the direction of the heart. An instruction which poises the question between murder in the first or second degree on the knife edge of the intent as to desired accomplishment at the time of the assault is too fine and narrow a one for the jury if it can be avoided. It is not like the question which the jury may be called upon to resolve whether, if there was an intent to kill, was it under such circumstances from which planning or premeditation could be inferred. The basis for an inference as to whether a killing was planned or premeditated is usually much broader than is the basis for drawing an inference as to whether the defendant at the moment of accomplishing the lethal blow intended to kill or only to do great bodily harm. The question posed by the court in its instruction defining second degree murder in this case turned not on whether the intent to kill was by premeditation or impulse but was a question of whether there was an intent to kill, the implication being that if there was, it was murder in the first degree; if not, but only an intention to accomplish great bodily harm, it was murder in the second degree.
*271Instead of instructing specifically as to what constituted second degree murder as far as the facts of this case were concerned, the court should have instructed that for the purposes of this case,
“Murder in the second degree is a homicide committed with malice aforethought but not falling under category (1) of the definition of first degree murder.”
He should then have defined and explained malice aforethought as the same was defined and explained in State v. Russell. He should then have followed with the last paragraph of Instruction No. 7, to wit,
“If your minds are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant under all the facts and circumstances shown in evidence in this case committed murder as defined to you in these instructions, but entertain a reasonable doubt to which of the degrees of murder he is guilty, then you should find him guilty of murder in the second degree.”
The instruction should have included the law as set out in category No. 1 of first degree murder and then proceeded to inform the jury that as far as the facts of this case were concerned if the homicide was committed under such circumstances as would have not constituted murder in the first degree hut still with malice aforethought, it would in this case be second degree murder, thus narrowing the question down to merely that of determining whether Trujillo, if it concluded that he did the shooting, had done so with a premeditation required by the first category of Section 103-28-3 and that if not, the jury must determine whether it was second degree murder. From this point the court could have proceeded with his instructions on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as he did.
The court stated in its Instruction No. 1 that
“The human mind acts with celerity which is sometimes impossible to measure and whether there is a deliberate and premeditated design to kill must be determined from all the facts and circumstances of the case.” (Emphasis ours.)
*272This dilutes to a degree, at least, the emphasis which the law places on the element of deliberation and premeditation in first degree murder. Somewhat similar language was used in State v. Anselmo, supra. This court there said,
“under our statute, therefore, it is not sufficient that the killing of a human being he intentional and deliberate, but to constitute murder in the first degree * * * the killing must be premeditated.” [46 Utah 137, 148 P. 1077.]
The trial judge there had instructed that an. act can be premeditated within a space of time so brief that the human mind cannot appreciate it nor grasp its duration. Such said this court “seems confusing, to say the least.” That statement was specifically disapproved in the Anselmo case. In that case this court reviewed cases which approved such expressions and also cases in which such expressions were criticized and disapproved. The matter above italicized in the court’s instruction in this case appears in the excerpt which Mr. Justice Frick approved as correctly stating the law in this jurisdiction. He stated
“no attempt should be made to fix any definite space of time which is necessary to constitute the premeditation required by our statute.”
Yet it would seem that such attempt is embraced within the words “the human mind acts with celerity which is sometimes impossible to measure” bringing into this case the very idea that the Anselmo case repudiated. I think this language is unfortunate, but I do not think that in itself it is prejudicial because it was accompanied by that part of Instruction No. 2 which stated that
“to constitute murder in the first degree it must appear that such time elapsed before delivering the blow resulting in death as was sufficient for some reflection and consideration upon the matter of choice to kill or not to kill and for the formation of a definite purpose to kill.”
However, I do not think it should be used hereafter.
*273I conclude with a recapitulation, to wit,
(1) At common law there were no degrees of murder. These were introduced by statute.
(2) The legislature set out four categories constituting murder in the first degree depending on the circumstances preceding or surrounding the killing , and differentiated largely by the mind state of the person who perpetrated the murder.
(3) After carving out from all murders these four categories and designating them as murders in the first degree where the penalty prescribed was death, there were other types of killing at common law attended by malice aforethought which remained uncategorized but which did not arise to the level of severity of first degree murders. These the legislature lumped together as second degree murders although the circumstances under which they could be committed varied as widely or more widely in type than did first degree murders. For these murders the legislature prescribed punishment of a period of years up to life.
(4) While theoretically the criterion for determining if a murder in the second degree has been committed is the touchstone of whether it would have been a murder at common law not covered by the categories of first degree murder, there were fact situations on the borderline dividing these two degrees where the killing might or might not have been done with intent to kill. And if there was an intent to kill it may have been on impulse or under circumstances which precluded on the one hand its being planned or premeditated and yet, on the other hand, not entirely actuated by such strong emotions generated out of a sudden and intense quarrel or heat of passion as to say that these emotions rather than a reasoning mind motivated the killing. Or the mind may not have had at the time of the killing the capacity to form an intent to kill. Or because of extenuating, mitigating or background circumstances the *274crime did not raise to a level where it would fall into any of the first degree murder categories. And yet in this in-between zone, killings may have been accompanied or actuated by malice aforethought either of the constructive type which is constructed out of the unlawful design to commit a common law felony or by the implied or express malice defined in Section 103-28-2, U. C. A. 1943, but not showing the animus or perfidy or conscious disregard for human life as characterizes categories (1), (3) and (4) of Section 103-28-3. (first degree murders.)
(5) The very difficulty of determining in borderline cases whether the murder would fall in one or more of the categories of first degree or in the category of second degree murder (because of extenuating or background circumstances or circumstanes which would make most difficult any refined appraisal or whether the crime was committed on a sudden impluse to kill or with a deliberate or premeditated intent to kill) make it advisable to leave to the common sense of the jury under the guidance of instructions as above suggested, the decision in these borderline cases as to whether the animus or malice chargeable to the killer should place it in the class of first degree murder or in the class of residual murders known as second degree murders without any attempt to encompass the comprehensive nature of second degree murder except in terms of its residual aspects.
(6) Hence, if the jury is instructed as to the categories of first degree murder applicable, and as to what constitutes malice in murder cases, and then instructed that if the jury finds it to be murder it must determine whether it falls in any of the categories of first degree murder as defined in the instructions, and if not, that it will then fall into the residual category known as second degree murder, the jury will be relieved of some of the difficulties involved in this subject. Of course, if the killing falls in neither category of murder, it may, if the evidence under any *275reasonable theory is susceptible of fitting into such theory be found to be voluntary, and in some cases even involuntary, manslaughter in which cases the jury should be instructed as to the definition and law applicable to such killings.
It follows from what was said above that I concur with the decision part of the opinion in the order for reversal and a new trial.