State of Minnesota v. Kevin James Moore
438 N.W.2d 101 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Guilty verdicts for both first-degree murder, which requires premeditation, and the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, which is statutorily defined as being without premeditation, are not legally inconsistent because the lack of premeditation is not an essential element of the crime of second-degree murder that the state must prove.
Facts:
- The night before the murder, Lynn Ferguson was seen with members of the L.A. Crypts street gang, who had threatened John Edmondson.
- On the night of August 26, 1987, Kevin James Moore was a passenger in a car driven by Lynn Ferguson, along with William Johnson and John Edmondson.
- Moore stated that Ferguson was 'setting up' Edmondson to be attacked by the L.A. Crypts and that he would protect his family.
- Moore directed Ferguson to drive into an alley and then to stop the car.
- While sitting in the back seat directly behind Ferguson, Moore pointed a revolver at her head and fired four shots, two of which struck and killed her.
- After the shooting, Moore fled the scene but later confessed to Faye Myers, Edmondson’s sister, that he had killed Lynn Ferguson by shooting her in the head.
- Police later recovered a blue sweatshirt belonging to Moore which was stained with blood that matched Ferguson's.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Kevin James Moore for murder.
- At trial, Moore moved to dismiss the indictment for failure to present exculpatory evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Moore was tried before a jury in a Minnesota state trial court.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts for both first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
- The court entered judgment on the first-degree murder conviction and sentenced Moore to life imprisonment.
- Moore (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are jury verdicts finding a defendant guilty of both first-degree murder, which requires premeditation, and second-degree murder, which is statutorily defined as being without premeditation, legally inconsistent, thereby requiring a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Keith, Justice
No. Jury verdicts finding a defendant guilty of both first-degree and second-degree murder are not legally inconsistent. The court reasoned that second-degree murder is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. If the state proves all the elements of first-degree murder (causing death with intent and premeditation), it has necessarily also established the elements of second-degree murder (causing death with intent). The statutory phrase 'without premeditation' for second-degree murder is not an essential element that the prosecution must affirmatively prove. To require the state to prove a negative—the absence of premeditation—would be an unreasonable burden. Therefore, while the verdicts may be logically inconsistent, they are not legally inconsistent, and the defendant is not entitled to a new trial, especially where judgment is entered only on the greater conviction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between logically inconsistent and legally inconsistent jury verdicts, particularly in the context of homicide charges and their lesser-included offenses. By holding that the 'lack of premeditation' in a second-degree murder charge is not an essential element, the court reinforces the principle that a conviction for a greater offense inherently supports a conviction for a lesser offense. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge convictions based on apparent contradictions in a jury's findings, thereby strengthening the finality of jury verdicts and providing clarity for how such verdicts should be handled at sentencing.
Unlock the full brief for State of Minnesota v. Kevin James Moore