Willey v. State
613 A.2d 956, 328 Md. 126 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conviction of first-degree murder, premeditation requires that the defendant had sufficient time to consciously consider the decision to kill, but this period of reflection and thought may be very brief.
Facts:
- Neal Willey and Venus Shifflett, who had a daughter together, separated in the fall of 1988.
- In July 1989, after Willey took their daughter without permission on two occasions, Shifflett forbade him from any further visitation.
- Following the denial of visitation, Willey became depressed, was hospitalized, and learned Shifflett was dating another man.
- Willey told his friend, Harvey Leichling, of a plan to stand in the woods behind Shifflett's home and shoot her; Leichling later found black clothing and a ski mask in Willey's room.
- Willey admitted to making threats to kill Shifflett to various people, including doctors and her friends.
- On August 27, 1989, Willey called Shifflett from a pay phone and threatened to kill her.
- Immediately after the call, Willey drove to a location behind Shifflett's house, walked to her window with a loaded gun, and observed her inside with their daughter and her new boyfriend.
- Willey, a trained military marksman, aimed the gun at Shifflett's head and fired a single, fatal shot through the window.
Procedural Posture:
- Neal Frederick Willey III was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (trial court).
- The jury found Willey guilty of first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony.
- Willey, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Willey, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury instruction that defines premeditation for first-degree murder as requiring only a 'brief' time for the defendant to form the intent to kill legally sufficient to distinguish it from the intent-to-kill variety of second-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Chasanow, J.
Yes, the jury instruction is legally sufficient. The essence of first-degree murder is not the duration of time, but that the killing was the product of a conscious choice made as a result of thought, distinguishing it from an impulsive act. The court reviewed its precedent, confirming that an 'appreciable length of time' for premeditation can be very brief, as long as it is sufficient for the defendant to be conscious of the intent to kill and to have thought about that intent. While the instruction given was not reversible error because it captured this core distinction, the court advised that in future cases, it would be preferable for instructions to be amplified to emphasize that the defendant must have had time to consider the decision and weigh the reasons for or against the choice to kill, in order to better clarify the difference between first and second-degree murder.
Concurrence - Bell, J.
Judge Bell concurred in the result only. He stated that based on the facts of the case, he would not have reached the issue of the jury instruction. However, if he were to reach the issue, he would have reversed the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Maryland's traditional view that premeditation for first-degree murder can occur in a very short period. However, the court's opinion signals a potential evolution in the doctrine by acknowledging the 'better view' that instantaneous deliberation blurs the statutory distinction between first and second-degree murder. By suggesting trial courts amplify their instructions to focus on the defendant's process of 'weighing' the choice to kill, the court sets the stage for future legal challenges and encourages a more nuanced application of the premeditation element. This case serves as a caution to lower courts that while the current pattern instruction is minimally adequate, greater clarity is needed to protect the distinction between degrees of murder.
