United States v. Begay
2011 WL 94566, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 571, 673 F.3d 1038 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to find premeditation for first-degree murder exists when a defendant engages in a sequence of deliberate actions, such as leaving the victim to retrieve a weapon and then returning to commit the killing, as these actions provide time for reflection and can demonstrate a conscious plan.
Facts:
- In the early morning hours of March 28, 2002, on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Kenderick Begay was driving his truck with several passengers, including his sister Mecheryl Begay and Loren Clark.
- Begay's truck passed a car going in the opposite direction; both vehicles turned around and, after Begay flashed his lights, pulled over onto a dirt road.
- The other car was occupied by two high school students, J.T. in the passenger seat and O.C. in the driver's seat.
- Begay exited his truck, walked to the driver's side of the other car, and stood there for about a minute.
- Begay then walked back to his own truck, reached under the driver's seat, and retrieved a .30 caliber rifle.
- He returned to the victims' car, this time approaching the front passenger side where J.T. was sitting, and fired eight or nine shots through the window.
- J.T. was struck by six bullets and died at the scene; O.C. was struck by a bullet that passed through J.T. and died from her wounds three days later.
- Immediately after the shooting, Begay's sister cried and yelled at him, and he told her to be quiet. When Clark asked Begay why he had shot the victims, Begay did not respond.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenderick Begay was charged in the U.S. District Court with two counts of first-degree murder under the federal Indian Major Crimes Act.
- A jury convicted Begay on both murder counts and two firearm counts.
- Begay appealed his first-degree murder convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the evidence of premeditation was insufficient.
- A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the first-degree murder convictions, agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation.
- The government's petition for a rehearing en banc was granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 sufficient circumstantial evidence of premeditation exist to support a first-degree murder conviction when a defendant, after a brief interaction with the victims, walks back to his vehicle to retrieve a rifle, returns to the victims' car, and shoots them multiple times, without any direct evidence of motive or a prior relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifton, Circuit Judge
Yes, sufficient circumstantial evidence of premeditation exists to support a first-degree murder conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Begay acted with planning and deliberation. The court's reasoning is based on four key pieces of circumstantial evidence: 1) Begay's act of leaving the victims' car to retrieve the rifle from his truck is strong evidence that he formed a plan to kill and then carried it out. 2) The time it took Begay to walk to his truck and back provided a sufficient interval for him to have been fully conscious of his intent and to have considered the killing. 3) Begay's decision to move from the driver's side to the passenger's side of the victims' car suggests a calculated effort to get a clearer shot at J.T. 4) Begay's calm reaction after the shooting—telling his sister to be quiet and not answering a question about his actions—could be interpreted by a jury as evidence of a 'cool mind.' The court emphasized that motive is not a required element of first-degree murder and that a conviction can be sustained based on evidence of the defendant's actions and the manner of the killing.
Dissenting - Reinhardt, Circuit Judge
No, the circumstantial evidence is insufficient for any rational trier of fact to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority opinion conflates the opportunity to premeditate with proof of actual premeditation. The dissent argues that the four pieces of evidence relied upon by the majority only support speculation. Retrieving a rifle from an adjacent truck does not show a preconceived plan, only an impulsive act. The fact that Begay had time to walk between vehicles does not prove he used that time for cool reflection, especially given testimony that he was 'pretty drunk.' Repositioning to get a 'clearer shot' is evidence of intent to kill (an element of second-degree murder), not the distinct element of premeditation. Finally, Begay's post-shooting reaction is ambiguous and could indicate shock or anger just as easily as a 'cool mind.' By upholding the conviction on such thin evidence, the majority effectively erases the legal distinction between first- and second-degree murder.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the Ninth Circuit's standard for what constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence of premeditation, reinforcing that a defendant's sequential, deliberate actions can be enough for a jury to infer a planned killing. It lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in cases where traditional evidence of premeditation, such as a stated motive or detailed planning, is absent. The ruling suggests that the physical act of retrieving a weapon and the time it takes to do so can, by themselves, satisfy the deliberation element of first-degree murder. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for defendants to challenge first-degree murder convictions on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds when the killing involved a series of distinct physical steps.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Begay