State v. Burley
137 N.H. 286 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct constitutes circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life for a second-degree murder conviction when it involves a combination of factors, such as intoxication, familiarity with firearms, knowingly handling a loaded weapon in close proximity to another person, and post-offense dishonesty.
Facts:
- On January 7, 1989, Arthur J. Burley was at home with his ex-wife, Debbie Glines, and had consumed at least six beers over several hours.
- Burley retrieved a .22 caliber semi-automatic handgun and a loaded clip of ammunition from a closet.
- He admitted to police that he loaded the gun, knowing this action made it ready to fire.
- Burley then sat on the living room floor near the kitchen, where he knew Glines was located.
- While holding the loaded gun with his finger in the trigger housing, the weapon discharged, striking Glines in the head and causing her death.
- Burley, who was familiar with the operation of similar firearms, initially told police the gun discharged while he was cleaning it.
- He later admitted that he was not cleaning the gun, but was instead "fooling around with it" when it went off.
- Two days prior to the fatal shooting, Burley had fired a rifle inside the apartment, which he also claimed happened while he was "joking around."
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Hampshire charged Arthur J. Burley with second-degree murder.
- The case was tried in the New Hampshire Superior Court before a jury.
- At trial, the court granted Burley's request for jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and negligent homicide.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Burley guilty of second-degree murder.
- Burley, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, with the State as the appellee.
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 a defendant's conduct, including being intoxicated, knowingly handling a loaded semi-automatic handgun with which he is familiar, and pointing it in the direction of another person, resulting in a fatal shooting, constitute sufficient evidence to prove the element of 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' required for a second-degree murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Batchelder, J.
Yes, the defendant's conduct constitutes sufficient evidence to prove extreme indifference to the value of human life. The determination of whether a defendant's actions manifest such indifference is a question for the jury, based on the specific facts of the case. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the circumstances. The court found compelling evidence in the defendant's familiarity with semi-automatic handguns, his admission that he knew the weapon was loaded, his awareness of the victim's presence in the next room, his state of intoxication, his handling of the cocked weapon with his finger in the trigger housing, and expert testimony that the gun could not have fired accidentally due to its safety features. The defendant's evolving and dishonest explanations for the shooting, culminating in the admission that he was 'fooling around,' further supported the jury's finding of extreme indifference rather than a mere accident.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the mental state of 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' can be inferred from a defendant's cumulative actions and the surrounding circumstances, rather than requiring direct evidence of intent. The decision reinforces that juries have significant discretion in evaluating a defendant's conduct to distinguish between murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. It establishes a precedent that a pattern of reckless behavior with firearms, combined with intoxication and dishonesty, provides a strong basis for a jury to find the heightened culpability required for a second-degree murder conviction. This holding makes it more difficult for defendants in similar situations to claim that a shooting was merely an accident or simple negligence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Burley