State v. Hurd, Minn.S.Ct., 8/8/2012. A jury convicted Mr. Hurd of first degree premeditated murder of his girlfriend, Kathryn Anderson, and first degree murder while committing a kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole on the premeditated murder conviction. On Appeal Mr. Hurd argued that the evidence had been insufficient to support both of the jury’s verdicts; and that the trial court had been wrong in denying a defense request to instruct the jury that any confinement or removal that was incidental to the murder was insufficient to constitute kidnapping.
Anderson’s body was found in a ditch some forty-seven miles from where she and Mr. Hurd lived. She had been stabbed 109 times. Police eventually arrested Mr. Hurd in Tulsa, where he was staying with his mother. While in jail in Tulsa, he wrote a number of incriminating statements on the walls of his cell. At trial, defense counsel conceded that Mr. Hurd had intentionally killed Anderson but argued that he had neither kidnapped her no premeditated the killing. The jury rejected both these arguments.
On appeal, Justice Page, writing for a unanimous court, utilized the Anderson two step to determine whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. State v. Anderson, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010). Here’s how the court swears it works:
First, we “identify the circumstances proved, giving deference ‘to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” State v. Anderson, 789 N.W.2d 227, 241-42 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 329). Next, “we independently examine ‘the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,’ including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” Id. at 242 (quoting Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 329); see also State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473-74 (Minn. 2010). Under this second step, we must “determine whether the circumstances proved are ‘consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt,’ not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 330).
Justice Page concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Here’s what the court relied upon to find premeditation:
The circumstances proved in this case related to planning activity include: (1) Hurd brought the murder weapon, a knife, with him when he drove Anderson to Owatonna; (2) Hurd took Anderson 47 miles away from her apartment against her will; (3) Hurd took Anderson 5 miles from the nearest freeway exit; (4) the nearest lights were over a quarter of a mile away; (5) the area was isolated and secluded; (6) the murder occurred late at night; (7) after beating and stabbing Anderson, Hurd left her in a ditch on the side of the road; (8) Hurd left Anderson on a cold December night wearing only a sweatshirt, boxer shorts, and no shoes; (9) after the murder Hurd bought a jacket and a prepaid phone at Walmart; (10) Hurd then bought a bus ticket to Tulsa using an assumed name; (11) Hurd had previously told his mother that he planned to return home to Tulsa; (12) Hurd lied to A.B. about the last time he saw Anderson in an effort to avoid detection; (13) Hurd lied to Anderson’s father to avoid detection; (14) Hurd lied to a BCA agent to avoid detection; (15) Hurd washed his bloody clothes; (16) Hurd attempted to clean the blood from Anderson’s car before abandoning it at the bus station; and (17) Hurd took money and a PlayStation game console from Anderson’s apartment. The inferences to be drawn from these circumstances relating to planning activity, when viewed as a whole, are consistent with the jury’s finding of premeditation and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.
The court compiled other lists in addition to this one but you get the picture, and can read them on your own.
Because the trial court neither convicted nor sentenced on the first degree murder while committing a kidnapping the court does not address the other two issues that Mr. Hurd raised on appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment