Citation. 22 Ill.412 Pa. 525, 194 A.2d 911 (1963)
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Carroll was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting and killing his wife after the two had violent argument. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was could not be found guilty of more than second-degree murder because the killing was not premeditated.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. While premeditation is an element of first-degree murder, where a killing is willful, deliberate and intentional, no time is too short for the necessary premeditation to occur.
Held. Yes. Judgment and conviction affirmed.
The specific intent to kill may be found from a defendant’s words or conduct or from the attendant circumstances and may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of another human being.
If a killing is intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated, the amount of time between the premeditation and the actual killing is immaterial. Therefore, the defendant’s contention that there was insufficient time for premeditation is without merit.
Premeditation is not negated by circumstances tending to show that the defendant acted with a lack of escape plan.
A psychiatrist’s opinion as to a defendant’s lack of intent is entitled to very little weight, especially is a case such as this one, where the defendant’s own testimony is in opposition.
Discussion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court essentially holds that while some premeditation is a necessary element of murder in the first degree, “no time is too short for the necessary premeditation to occur”. In other words, it is immaterial how much time passes between the premeditation and the actual fatal act that takes place. Given the fact that premeditation can take place a fraction of a second before the fatal act takes place, think about the fine line between murder in the first, which requires premeditation, and second-degree murder, which does not.