State v. Netland
1995 Minn. LEXIS 673, 1995 WL 458918, 535 N.W.2d 328 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Premeditation for first-degree murder does not require a specific period of time for deliberation and can be inferred from preparatory actions, prior statements, and circumstantial evidence; furthermore, a defendant generally cannot seek relief for legally inconsistent verdicts when they specifically requested the submission of the allegedly inconsistent lesser offense to the jury.
Facts:
- Early on June 18, 1993, Darren Netland forcibly entered a 70-foot long mobile home in a Hutchinson, Minnesota trailer park, located just down the street from his own trailer house.
- Bonnie Rannow and Scott Vacek, whom Netland did not know, were asleep in a bedroom at the other end of their mobile home.
- Upon entering the mobile home, Netland took with him a partially-filled one-gallon gasoline can left on the outside deck, removed all his clothes, and then pulled four large steak knives from a knife block in the kitchen.
- Netland took two of the knives and walked to the bedroom where Rannow and Vacek were sleeping, first stabbing Vacek in the chest, then stabbing Rannow.
- Vacek woke to Rannow screaming, realized there was a knife in his chest, removed it, and shouted, causing Netland to flee naked back to his own nearby trailer, leaving his wallet, car keys, and trailer keys behind in the victims' kitchen.
- Doctors at the hospital determined they could not save Rannow’s life due to the 10-inch deep stab wound; her unborn child (at 23-25 weeks) was delivered by emergency C-section but showed no signs of life and was pronounced dead, as was Rannow.
- Vacek sustained a 2-3 inch deep stab wound that penetrated his lung but survived.
- Prior to the incident, Netland had admitted fantasizing about killing unknown people and had previously wondered aloud to friends what it would be like to kill someone, asking them if they had ever thought about it.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury found Darren Netland guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree premeditated murder of an unborn child, and attempted first-degree premeditated murder.
- The trial court sentenced Netland to two concurrent terms of life in prison for the two murders and a consecutive term of 180 months for the attempted murder.
- Darren Netland, as appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Minnesota Supreme 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:
1. Does sufficient evidence exist to establish premeditation for first-degree murder when a defendant engages in preparatory actions, makes prior statements about killing, and commits an unprovoked attack, despite claims of intoxication? 2. Are verdicts of guilty for first-degree premeditated murder legally inconsistent with verdicts of guilty for third-degree depraved mind murder when the defendant requested the submission of the third-degree murder instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - COYNE, Justice
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to establish premeditation for first-degree murder. The court found no hesitancy in concluding that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the guilty verdicts, was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Netland acted with premeditation. Premeditation, as defined by Minn.Stat. § 609.18, means to “consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit” the act, requiring some “appreciable time” for consideration, planning, or preparation, though no specific period is necessary. The evidence of preparatory actions—bringing a gas can, disrobing to avoid blood on clothes, selecting knives, and walking to the bedroom—coupled with Netland’s prior statements about fantasizing about killing people, strongly supported an inference of premeditation. The court cited precedents like `Bangert v. State` for similar factual patterns supporting premeditation. The court also rejected the argument that Netland's intoxication precluded a finding of premeditation, noting that under Minn.Stat. § 609.075, voluntary intoxication may be considered but does not necessarily prevent a finding of the requisite mental state, leaving that determination to the jury. No, the court need not address whether the verdicts of guilty of first-degree premeditated murder are legally inconsistent with the verdicts of guilty of third-degree depraved mind murder. The court declined to address the issue of legal consistency because Netland specifically requested the trial court to submit the third-degree depraved mind murder instruction to the jury, despite the state's vigorous objection. Under these circumstances, where the defendant “got exactly what he asked for,” the court deemed it unnecessary to examine the legal consistency of the verdicts, drawing upon principles related to jury lenity and procedural estoppel.
Concurring - TOMLJANOVICH, Justice
No, the convictions under the first-degree premeditated murder statute and the third-degree murder statute are not legally or logically inconsistent. Justice Tomljanovich concurred with the result but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning for not addressing the legal consistency of the verdicts, arguing that this approach effectively precludes crucial judicial review, as defendants almost always request submission of lesser offenses. She asserted that jury verdicts are legally inconsistent only when a necessary element of each offense is subject to conflicting findings. While first-degree murder requires intent and premeditation, third-degree depraved mind murder (Minn.Stat. § 609.195(a)) does not require the lack of intent to effect death as a necessary element to be proven by the state. A premeditated murder of a pregnant woman or an unborn child is inherently an act “eminently dangerous to others” (as the unborn child was inside the mother) and demonstrates a “depraved mind” through “wanton and vicious” conduct. Such an act also indicates a “reckless or willful indifference to human life.” Therefore, the elements required for a first-degree murder conviction do not conflict with, or are not inconsistent with, the elements of a third-degree murder conviction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that premeditation for first-degree murder can be inferred from a confluence of circumstantial evidence, including preparatory actions and prior statements, even without direct evidence of a lengthy deliberation period. It also highlights the limited applicability of voluntary intoxication as a defense, emphasizing that juries retain discretion to find the requisite mental state. Most notably, the decision creates a unique procedural bar for defendants seeking relief on grounds of legally inconsistent verdicts if they themselves requested the instruction for the lesser, allegedly inconsistent offense, potentially impacting trial strategy regarding lesser-included offenses. The concurrence, while agreeing on the outcome, provides a substantive analysis of why these specific murder charges might not be legally inconsistent, offering a different pathway for future courts to consider this complex issue.
