Nathan Holden Trial Jury Question 3

TL;DR

The judge addresses a question from the jury about premeditation and deliberation, explaining the definitions and instructing them to rely on their common sense and understanding.

Transcript

all right uh we have a question from the jur and the question reads as follows can we have a better understanding of premeditation or deliberation or any example that can be given uh my inclination is is that uh not to give any examples I don't think that would be uh permitted I don't know of a better definition than that than has already been give... Read More

Key Insights

• ❓ Examples to clarify premeditation and deliberation are deemed inappropriate.
• 🙃 Both sides have tailored their arguments based on the pattern jury instruction.
• 🙂 Different cases may have slightly different language, but the definitions remain consistent over the years.
• 🤔 Premeditation refers to thinking about something beforehand, while deliberation involves a killing with a fixed design to kill.
• ❓ The jury is instructed to rely on their common sense and understanding of the given definitions.
• 📁 Neither premeditation nor deliberation are usually susceptible to direct proof and may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
• 😷 The jury is urged to continue their deliberations and ask further questions if needed.

Questions & Answers

Q: Can the judge provide examples to clarify the definitions of premeditation and deliberation?

The judge believes that examples are not appropriate, as they could potentially bias the jury's understanding of the concepts. The given definitions from the pattern jury instruction should be relied upon.

Q: Are there any additional instructions that could add clarity to the issue?

The judge does not think there are any additional instructions that would significantly improve the clarity, as both sides have already tailored their arguments to the existing instructions.

Q: How are premeditation and deliberation defined in the case law?

The judge refers to a case (State v. Bullock) that defines premeditation as thinking about something beforehand for any length of time, however short. Deliberation means a killing committed with a fixed design to kill, regardless of the defendant's anger or passion at the time of the act.

Q: Should the jury be reinstructed with slightly different language?

The judge believes it would not be productive to provide slightly different language at this point, as it may cause confusion. The differences between various cases' definitions are small.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• A juror asks for a better understanding of premeditation or deliberation, but the judge believes examples are not appropriate.

• The judge refers to the pattern jury instruction and states that both sides tailored their arguments accordingly.

• Different case law definitions of premeditation and deliberation are discussed, but the judge concludes that the given definitions are sufficient and instructs the jury to continue their deliberations.