No. Killing someone to end their suffering is still pre-planned murder if you thought about it beforehand. The court said there was a lot of proof that the son planned the killing. For example, his father was helpless and didn't provoke him. The son also said he had 'promised' his dad, which shows he had thought about it. Most importantly, the gun he used had to be cocked for each of the four shots, which proves he made four separate decisions to fire. The son's sadness wasn't the kind of sudden, out-of-control 'heat of passion' that can sometimes reduce a murder charge.

No, the verdict isn't fair because the trial judge confused the jury. The dissenting judge argued that the instructions given to the jury were bad. The trial judge didn't properly explain the difference between killing someone for an evil reason (malice) and killing them for a reason that might be less evil, like ending pain. Because the jury didn't get this explanation, they couldn't fairly decide if this was murder or a lesser crime called manslaughter. The judge believed the son should get a new trial with better, clearer instructions.

Yes, John Forrest is guilty of first-degree murder. The evidence showed he planned to kill his father on purpose, which is what the law calls premeditation and deliberation. Some key facts were: John's father didn't do anything to provoke him, John made statements before and after the shooting that showed his plan, and he shot his helpless father four times at close range with a gun he had to get ready to shoot each time. The court said the jury instructions about the 

I disagree with the majority. I think the jury instructions about 

Yes, John Forrest is guilty of first-degree murder. The evidence showed he planned to kill his father on purpose, which is what the law calls premeditation and deliberation. Some key facts were: John's father didn't do anything to provoke him, John made statements before and after the shooting that showed his plan, and he shot his helpless father four times at close range with a gun he had to get ready to shoot each time. We said the jury instructions about the nature of intent and premeditation were appropriate.

No, John Forrest did not plan to kill his father on purpose, which would make it first-degree murder. I disagree with the majority. I think the jury instructions about intent and premeditation were misleading, and that John's actions might be seen differently if we consider his motive to alleviate his father's suffering as a factor in determining his intent.

No. A defendant’s motive to end a loved one's suffering, often termed a 'mercy killing,' does not legally negate the elements of premeditation and deliberation required to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder. The court reasoned that there was substantial evidence of both premeditation and deliberation. Premeditation, the act of thinking out the matter beforehand, and deliberation, the intent to kill in a 'cool state of blood,' can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Key evidence here included the lack of provocation by the helpless victim, the defendant's own statements that he had thought about it and made a promise to his father, and the use of a single-action revolver that had to be manually cocked before each of the four shots. The court also rejected the argument that the defendant acted in the 'heat of passion,' holding that emotional distress over a loved one's suffering does not constitute the kind of adequate provocation required to reduce murder to manslaughter.

No, the conviction should not be upheld because the jury instructions were erroneous. The dissent argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the concept of malice, thereby preventing them from fairly considering if the killing should be mitigated from murder to manslaughter. The trial court defined malice as killing 'without just cause, excuse or justification' but improperly omitted the phrase 'and without mitigation.' This omission, coupled with the instruction that a 'mercy killing' motive is not a legal defense, effectively told the jury they could not consider the defendant's compassionate motive to rebut the inference of malice. This created conflicting and confusing instructions that prejudiced the defendant and warranted a new trial.

Yes, the defendant committed first-degree murder because the evidence showed that he intentionally and unlawfully killed his father with malice and with premeditation and deliberation. The court found substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation, including the lack of provocation, the defendant's statements before and after the killing, and the nature of the killing itself, where the defendant shot his helpless father four times at point-blank range with a gun that had to be cocked before each shot. The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on malice were correct and not coercive, and that the defendant's belief that his father was terminally ill did not constitute a legal defense to murder or negate the malice required for a murder conviction.

I dissent because I believe the trial court erred in its jury instructions on malice by failing to instruct that circumstances in mitigation, such as the defendant's desire to end his father's suffering from a terminal illness, could rebut the malice element required for murder. The instructions effectively precluded the jury from considering the defendant's reasons for the killing on the issue of malice, and at best were conflicting on this crucial element. For this error, I would grant the defendant a new trial.

Yes, the defendant committed first-degree murder because the evidence shows that he intentionally and unlawfully killed his father with malice and with premeditation and deliberation. We find substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation, including the lack of provocation, the defendant's statements before and after the killing, and the nature of the killing itself, where the defendant shot his helpless father four times at point-blank range with a gun that had to be cocked before each shot. We hold that the trial court's jury instructions on malice were correct and not coercive, and that the defendant's belief that his father was terminally ill did not constitute a legal defense to murder or negate the malice required for a murder conviction.

No, the defendant’s first-degree murder conviction cannot stand. I dissent because I believe the trial court erred in its jury instructions on malice by failing to instruct that circumstances in mitigation, such as the defendant's desire to end his father's suffering from a terminal illness, could rebut the malice element required for murder. The instructions effectively precluded the jury from considering the defendant's reasons for the killing on the issue of malice, and at best were conflicting on this crucial element. For this error, I would grant the defendant a new trial.

State v. Forrest

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot