State v. Thompson
395 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 6, 65 P.3d 420, 204 Ariz. 471 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona law, premeditation for first-degree murder requires the state to prove that the defendant actually reflected on the decision to kill. The statutory phrase '[p]roof of actual reflection is not required' merely clarifies that this element of reflection can be proven by circumstantial evidence, rather than eliminating the substantive element itself.
Facts:
- Several days before the shooting, Roberta Palma filed for divorce from her husband, Larry Thompson.
- Thompson discovered that Palma was seeing someone else.
- About a week before the shooting, Thompson moved out of the couple's home.
- As he moved out, Thompson threatened Palma, stating, 'If you divorce me, I will kill you.'
- On the morning of May 17, 1999, Thompson was seen walking near the home and his car was spotted in a nearby alley.
- Two witnesses reported seeing a man drag a woman by her hair from the front porch into the home.
- A 9-1-1 call from the house recorded a woman's screams and four gunshots over a span of approximately twenty-seven seconds, with significant pauses between the shots.
- Police arrived to find Palma dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
Procedural Posture:
- The State prosecuted Larry Thompson in an Arizona trial court for the first-degree murder of his wife.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury on premeditation using the verbatim statutory definition, which included the phrase '[p]roof of actual reflection is not required.'
- The jury found Thompson guilty of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison.
- Thompson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the statute defining premeditation was unconstitutionally vague.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding the statute constitutional.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to consider the constitutionality of the statute and clarify the meaning of premeditation.
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 Arizona's statutory definition of premeditation, which states that '[p]roof of actual reflection is not required,' unconstitutionally blur the distinction between first and second-degree murder, rendering the first-degree murder statute void for vagueness?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Berch
No, the Arizona first-degree murder statute is not unconstitutional because the element of premeditation, properly interpreted, requires proof of actual reflection. To save the statute from being unconstitutionally vague, the court construes the phrase '[p]roof of actual reflection is not required' to mean that the state is relieved of the burden of producing direct evidence of reflection, not that the element of reflection is eliminated. The state must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually reflected, which it can do through circumstantial evidence. The mere passage of time is evidence that can suggest reflection, but it is not a substitute for the element itself. The court therefore established a new, clearer jury instruction to be used in future cases that emphasizes the necessity of reflection to distinguish first from second-degree murder.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Ryan
No, the statute is not unconstitutional, but the majority incorrectly rewrites it by re-inserting a requirement of actual reflection that the legislature intentionally removed. The legislature's amendment was a direct response to case law that required proof of reflection, and the plain language and legislative history show a clear intent to eliminate that requirement. The statute is constitutional as written because the combination of three factors—(1) intent to kill, (2) passage of time to permit reflection, and (3) that the act was not the result of a 'sudden quarrel or heat of passion'—provides a discernible standard that sufficiently distinguishes first from second-degree murder. The majority has engaged in judicial legislation by substituting its judgment for the legislature's clear intent.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its use of a constitutional saving construction to preserve Arizona's first-degree murder statute. By interpreting the statute to require proof of actual reflection (albeit through circumstantial evidence), the court maintained the traditional distinction between deliberated first-degree murder and impulsive second-degree murder, which was at risk of being eliminated. This holding prevents the element of premeditation from collapsing into a mere time-based inquiry. The court's establishment of a new standard jury instruction is a key practical outcome, designed to prevent juror confusion and ensure prosecutors meet their burden of proving the defendant's reflective mental state in future cases.
