State v. Cox, Minn.S.Ct., 8/24/2016. Mr. Cox and his buddy Mr. Kurr went to rob Mr. Moran whom they believed was a drug dealer and thus likely to have a lot of both drugs and cash laying around his house. When Mr. Moran failed to obey Mr. Cox's command to take his hands out of his pockets Mr. Cox first shot Mr. Moran in the thigh and then three times in the chest. A jury convicted Mr. Cox of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree intentional felony murder and first degree aggravated robbery. On appeal Mr. Cox challenged the admissibility of his confession, and the sufficiency of premeditation to uphold the first degree premeditated murder conviction.
Mr. Cox said that his confession was not voluntary for three reasons: the cops promised that in exchange for his confession they would look into his brother's death; the cops assured him that they could influence the county attorney's charging decision; and a "small town Scott County jury" would be more lenient if presented with a full confession. Justice Dietzen rejects each of these assertions in turn. The Justice says that because it was Mr. Cox who suggested that he would trade his confession for a promise to look into his brother's death his will was hardly overborne. While it is improper for cops to suggest that they can influence prosecutors in favor of a defendant, all that the cops did here was to point out that the prosecutors would be "impressed" by his confession. Finally, the crack abou "small town juries" being more lenient was "simply a prediction.
Two Justices, Chief Justice Gildea and Justice G. Barry Anderson, dissented from the majority's conclusion that the state had sufficiently proven premeditation. Here's what Justice Dietzen says that the state proved that support a reasonable inference that Mr. Cox premeditated Mr. Moran's murder, which facts are inconsistent with a reasonable inference that his conduct was the result of a rash impulse:
The circumstances proved taken together are as follows. Cox planned the armed robbery of Moran’s home, including the potential murder of those he encountered, to accomplish his criminal objective. Cox practiced shooting the handgun, and brought a fully loaded handgun, extra bullets, and a shooting glove with him so that he was ready to murder the occupants of the home if necessary. Cox unlawfully entered Moran’s home, and told B.M. that he might kill everyone in the home if B.M. lied to him. When Moran arrived Cox stated that Moran is “the one I’m looking for.” Moran’s cell phone rang and Cox ordered Moran to show his hands. When Moran ignored Cox’s command to “put down the phone,” Cox shot Moran in the leg shattering his femur. Forty seconds elapsed between the first command and the first shot. Moran was wounded and unarmed. When Moran ignored the second command, Cox shot Moran in the chest causing him to stumble and fall. Cox shot Moran in the chest two more times.
The dissenters anguish that the majority has eviscerated the intentional murder statute:
The court’s holding in this case will make a premeditated murder out of virtually any armed robbery that results in a death. More generally, an affirmance here of the premeditated murder conviction may leave few circumstances that fit the statutory definition of intentional murder. Given the legislative decision to distinguish between an intentional murder and a premeditated murder, that cannot be the law. The circumstances as a whole in this case are not consistent only with the theory of a premeditated murder and inconsistent with all other rational theories. As a result, I would vacate the conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment