State v. Bingham
105 Wash. 2d 820, 719 P.2d 109 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of manual strangulation, which takes 3 to 5 minutes to cause death, is not, by itself, sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the element of premeditation required for a first-degree murder conviction. There must be additional evidence of deliberation or reflection to distinguish the crime from second-degree murder.
Facts:
- On February 15, 1982, Charles Dean Bingham and Leslie Cook, a retarded adult, got off a bus together in Sequim, having had no known prior relationship.
- The pair visited a grocery store and two residences.
- At the last residence, Bingham was denied a ride and stated he and Cook would hitchhike; they were last seen leaving together toward an infrequently traveled highway.
- On February 18, 1982, Cook's body was found in a pasture.
- An autopsy revealed Cook had been raped antemortem and the cause of death was manual strangulation, which required 3 to 5 minutes of continuous pressure to the windpipe.
- Bite marks were found on Cook's breasts, one of which was conclusively matched to Bingham's teeth.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Charles Dean Bingham in Clallam County Superior Court (trial court) with aggravated first-degree murder.
- A jury found Bingham guilty of aggravated first-degree murder.
- Following the penalty phase, the trial court sentenced Bingham to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- Bingham sought direct review from the Washington Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, Division Two.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation, and remanded for resentencing on the lesser offense of second-degree murder.
- The State of Washington (appellant) was granted discretionary review by the Washington Supreme Court (this court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the time it takes to cause death by manual strangulation, standing alone, constitute sufficient evidence to support a jury finding of the element of premeditation for first-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodloe, J.
No, the time required to cause death by manual strangulation, by itself, is insufficient evidence to establish premeditation. Premeditation requires proof of deliberation or reflection, which distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder. The State presented no direct or circumstantial evidence of deliberation or reflection by Bingham before or during the strangulation. Merely having an opportunity to deliberate during the 3 to 5 minutes it took to cause death is not evidence that the defendant actually did deliberate. To hold otherwise would erase the distinction between first and second-degree murder, as any killing that takes more than a moment could be found to be premeditated. Prior cases upholding premeditation in strangulation deaths involved additional evidence, such as a severe prior beating or the use of a prepared ligature, which suggested a thought process beyond the homicidal act itself.
Dissenting - Callow, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Premeditation can be formed during the commission of the fatal act, not just before it begins. The continuous application of lethal force for 3 to 5 minutes is itself evidence of deliberation, as the defendant had a significant period to reflect, desist, and change his heart, but consciously chose not to. Furthermore, other circumstantial evidence supported a finding of premeditation, including the defendant taking the victim to a secluded location, the commission of a rape, the lack of provocation, and the biting of the victim's body. The jury was entitled to infer that the defendant chose to kill in order to silence his victim and conceal the rape, and the court should not usurp the jury's function of weighing this evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary standard for the element of premeditation in Washington State. It establishes that the duration of the homicidal act, by itself, cannot satisfy the requirement of deliberation. The ruling forces prosecutors in cases of manual strangulation or other prolonged killings to produce additional, independent evidence of a thought process—such as planning, motive, or a pause in the attack—to secure a first-degree murder conviction. This precedent protects the critical legal distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder, preventing an automatic escalation of the charge based solely on the method of killing.
