ProfessorScott Caron
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Following a violent argument he had with his wife, Carroll (D) shot her at the back of her head.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A defendant words or conduct or the attendant circumstances, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of another person, which represents the specific intent to kill, are necessary in proving a first-degree murder.
Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, wilful, deliberate and premeditated.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Can the defendant’s words or conduct or the attendant circumstances, together with all reasonable inferences, the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of another person, represents the specific intent to kill necessary in proving a first- degree murder?
Held. (Bell, C.J) Yes. A defendant words or conduct, or the attendant circumstances, together with all reasonable inferences, the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of another person, which represents the specific intent to kill, are necessary in proving a first-degree murder. The findings of the court were that of a first-degree murder but this was contended by Carroll (D) to be a second-degree murder. If the killing was intentional, deliberate, willful and premeditated, then whether the intent to kill or the killing were within a brief or long space of time is immaterial.
Discussion. This case stands to prove that “no time is too short” to prove premeditation.