People v. Oros

Facts

D went door-to-door targeting residents in an attempt to solicit money. D's ruse was that his girlfriend had left him without access to his vehicle, debit card, or cell phone. D asked each resident if he could use their phone so that he could contact his girlfriend. If allowed to do so, D would actually place a call to his cell phone, which was located inside his vehicle where no one was available to answer it. After an 'unsuccessful' call, D would directly or indirectly solicit money from each resident, claiming that he needed gas money to get to work. The solicitation started out passive but quickly turned aggressive. Another resident testified that he felt uncomfortable because he sensed D was casing his apartment. D admitted that he was able to persuade the victim to let him inside the apartment, and once inside, he used the victim's phone just as he had with the other residents. D claims the victim, acting without provocation, struck him over the head with a coffee mug, knocking him to the floor. D claims the victim climbed on top of him with a 'huge knife in her hand.' A struggle over the knife ensued, and after D gained control over the knife, he began stabbing the victim. The victim sustained a total of 29 stab wounds, 19 of which were inflicted while she was still alive. D was charged with open murder. The court instructed the jury on the elements of the crimes of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. To prove first-degree premeditated murder, the instructed that the Prosecutor must prove D intended to kill Marie McMillan, the intent to kill was premeditated, that is thought out beforehand and the killing was deliberate which means that D considered the pros and cons of the killing and thought about and chose his actions before he did it. There must have been real and substantial reflection for long enough to give a reasonable person a chance to think twice about the intent to kill. The law does not say how much time is needed. It is for you to decide if enough time passed under the circumstances of this case. The killing cannot be the result of a sudden impulse without thought or reflection. To prove second-degree murder the Prosecutor must prove D caused the death of Marie McMillan as a result of a stabbing. That D intended to kill, or he intended to do great bodily harm to Marie McMillan, or he knowingly created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result of actions. The court instructed, that the crime of murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if D acted out of passion or anger brought about by adequate cause and before the D had a reasonable time to calm down. For manslaughter, the following two things must be present. First, when D acted his thinking must be disturbed by emotional excitement to the point that a reasonable person might have acted in impulse without thinking twice from passion instead of judgment. This emotional excitement must have been the result of something that would cause a reasonable person to act rashly or on impulse. The law does not say what things are enough to do this. That is for you to decide. The killing itself must result from this emotional excitement and D must have acted before a reasonable time had passed to calm down and return to reason. The law does not say how much time is needed. That is for you to decide. The test is whether a reasonable time passed under the circumstances of this case. D was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to support a second-degree murder conviction but not D's first-degree premeditated murder jury conviction. It found the circumstances surrounding the killing as the most significant factor. It rejected P's argument that D had adequate time to consciously reconsider his actions in a 'second look.' P appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.