State v. Schrader

West Virginia Supreme Court
172 W. Va. 1, 302 S.E.2d 70 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For the purpose of a first-degree murder conviction, the element of premeditation does not require an extended period of deliberation; the specific intent to kill can be formed at the moment of the killing.

Facts:

On December 14, 1977, William Schrader, Jr. went to Frank Millione’s Gun and Coin Shop.
An argument developed between Schrader and Millione concerning the authenticity of a German sword Schrader had previously bought.
During the argument, Schrader stabbed Millione fifty-one times with a hunting knife.
Schrader claimed that Millione had reached into his pocket for a gun, but Schrader testified that he never saw Millione produce a weapon.

Procedural Posture:

William Schrader, Jr. was tried for murder in the Circuit Court of Marion County, the state's trial court.
Before trial, Schrader moved for a continuance due to the late delivery of discovery materials, which the court denied.
Schrader requested individual voir dire of potential jurors, but the court questioned them as a group.
The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence and that premeditation could be formed at the moment of the killing.
A jury convicted Schrader of first-degree murder without a recommendation of mercy.
The circuit court sentenced Schrader to life imprisonment.
Schrader, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest 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 a jury instruction for first-degree murder misstate the law by defining 'premeditated' as an intention to kill that may come into existence for the first time at the moment of the killing?

Opinions:

Majority - Neely, Justice

No. The jury instruction is a correct statement of law because, within the context of West Virginia's murder statute, 'willful, deliberate, and premeditated' simply means that the killing was intentional. The court's reasoning is based on a historical analysis of the term 'premeditated' as it has been interpreted since its introduction into homicide statutes in the late 18th century. When West Virginia adopted Virginia's murder statute in 1868, the settled legal meaning was that the intent to kill, not the duration of its existence, was the key element. The court found that 'premeditation' is a legal term of art, distinct from its common dictionary definition, and its legal meaning is to distinguish intentional killings from other forms of homicide. Therefore, the mental process of premeditation can occur in an instant, and an instruction stating that the intent to kill can form at the moment of the act is legally sound.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the long-standing, and often counter-intuitive, legal definition of premeditation in West Virginia, solidifying that first-degree murder does not require proof of advance planning or a lengthy period of reflection. This interpretation provides juries with significant discretion to find first-degree murder even in cases of seemingly spontaneous violence, as long as a specific intent to kill can be inferred from the defendant's actions at the moment of the crime. The ruling reinforces that 'premeditation' is a legal construct focused on the mental state of intent rather than the temporal element of planning, thereby maintaining a broad scope for first-degree murder charges.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Schrader (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature