United States v. Walters
Summary Order (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sufficient 'cooling off' period between a provocation and a fatal act negates a 'heat of passion' defense, supporting a finding of malice aforethought for murder, especially when accompanied by deliberate actions to retrieve a weapon and return to the scene.
Facts:
- On August 26, 2015, Jaquan Walters provided Lamar Moorer with a $10 bag of marijuana.
- Lamar Moorer refused to pay Walters for the marijuana, then punched Walters, leading to a fistfight.
- The fistfight between Walters and Moorer lasted for several minutes.
- After the fistfight ended, Walters left the scene on his bicycle to retrieve a loaded firearm that had been stowed on the roof of a nearby building.
- Approximately six minutes after leaving the altercation, Walters returned to the scene with the gun.
- Walters walked towards Moorer, slowly and purposely pulled his gun out of a plastic bag, and fired at least five shots into Moorer's chest, continuing to shoot after Moorer had fallen to the ground.
- After the killing, Walters attempted to hide the gun and disposed of his bicycle.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaquan Walters was charged with distributing and possessing marijuana, and with murdering another person with a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Walters stipulated to most of the offense conduct, and the parties proceeded to a three-day bench trial where the sole issue was whether the killing constituted murder or manslaughter.
- The district court concluded that Walters committed the killing with malice aforethought and convicted him of murder, sentencing him principally to a total of 300 months' imprisonment.
- Walters, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his murder conviction.
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 the evidence sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jaquan Walters acted with malice aforethought, rather than in the heat of passion or an unreasonable belief of self-defense, when he killed Lamar Moorer?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the evidence sufficiently proved that Jaquan Walters acted with malice aforethought, not in the heat of passion or an unreasonable belief of self-defense, when he killed Lamar Moorer. The court found that approximately six minutes passed between the fistfight and the shooting, during which Walters was separated from Moorer and had the opportunity to escape the provocative situation and reflect. Instead of leaving, Walters retrieved a firearm and returned to the scene. The court concluded that this interval was sufficient for Walters's 'inflamed passions' to have 'cooled,' demonstrating that his 'reason and judgment were not disturbed by passion.' His actions, including retrieving the weapon and later attempting to conceal it and dispose of his bicycle, indicated 'a calm, cool, collected man who acted with a motive to kill' and undermined the heat of passion defense. Furthermore, assuming without deciding the existence of an 'imperfect self-defense' doctrine at federal common law, the court found ample proof that Walters did not hold an unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. The district court's findings highlighted that Walters was often the aggressor, he returned to the scene without immediate provocation, his concealment attempts showed consciousness of guilt and malice, he shot Moorer 'execution style' multiple times at close range while Moorer was unarmed and on his phone, and the true motivation appeared to be retaliation for Moorer's failure to pay and their fight, rather than genuine fear. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Walters killed Moorer with malice aforethought.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for successfully asserting a 'heat of passion' defense, particularly when there is a significant temporal gap between provocation and the fatal act, coupled with evidence of deliberate actions (like retrieving a weapon). It highlights that actions demonstrating premeditation or a retaliatory motive, such as returning to a scene after leaving or attempting to conceal the crime, strongly undermine claims of diminished mental state. The court explicitly noted its open question regarding the existence of an 'imperfect self-defense' doctrine at federal common law, indicating an area of potential future legal development or clarification within the circuit.
