State v. Thompson

65 P.3d 420 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D shot and killed his wife, Roberta Palma. Palma had filed for divorce, and D had discovered that she was seeing someone else. Just a week before the shooting, Thompson moved out of the couple's home. As he did so, Thompson threatened Palma; 'if you divorce me, I will kill you.' On May 17, D was seen walking on the sidewalk near the home, and his car was spotted in a nearby alley. Two witnesses reported that a man dragged a woman by the hair from the front porch into the home. That same morning, police received and recorded a 9-1-1 call from the house. The tape-recorded a woman's screams and four gunshots. The four gunshots span nearly twenty-seven seconds. Nine seconds elapse between the first shot and the third, and there is an eighteen-second delay between the third shot and the fourth. Palma was found dead from gunshot wounds. An autopsy of her body revealed several fresh abrasions, five non-contact gunshot wounds, and one contact gunshot wound. D claimed the killing was in the heat of passion. P argues that D premeditated the murder. P emphasized the timing of the shots and the delay between them. The prosecutor also reminded the jury of D's threat, made a week before the murder, to kill his wife. P argued that D need not actually have reflected, but only had the time to reflect: 'But the main point to remember about premeditation is that premeditation is time to permit reflection. The instruction also tells you that actual reflection is not necessary, [only] the time to permit reflection.' P then referred to circumstantial evidence suggesting that D actually had reflected, but then told the jury it need only decide that D had the time to reflect, not that he actually had reflected. The jury instruction brought home the point that time to reflect was necessary, not actual reflection. D was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. D appealed contending the instruction for premeditation and reflection was wrong. The court of appeals agreed but affirmed in that the time period employed by the statute to describe premeditation has enough substance to provide a workable method for distinguishing between degrees of murder. D appealed.