State v.

Thompson
Notes
On May 17, 1999, Thompson shot and killed his wife, Roberta Palma. Several
days before the shooting, Palma had filed for divorce, and Thompson had discovered
that she was seeing someone else. Just a week before the shooting, Thompson moved
out of the couple's house. As he did so, Thompson threatened Palma that, "if you
divorce me, I will kill you."
Thompson returned to the couple's neighborhood the morning of May 17. He
was seen walking on the sidewalk near the home and his car was spotted in a nearby
alley. Two witnesses reported that a man dragged a woman by the hair from the front
porch into the home. That same morning, police received and recorded a 911 call from
the house. The tape recorded a woman's screams and four gunshots. The four gunshots
span nearly 27 seconds. Nine seconds elapse between the first and third, and there is
an 18 second delay between the third and 4th shot.
Police arrived shortly after the call and found Palma dead from gunshot
wounds. An autopsy of her body revealed several fresh abrasions, five non-contact
gun shot wounds, and one contact gunshot wound.
Issue
#1. Whether this definition of premeditation abolishes the requirement of actual
reflection altogether, whether it eliminates the requirement of direct proof of actual
reflection, or whether it substitutes for the necessary proof of actual reflection the
mere passage of enough time to permit reflection.
Reasoning
The statute at issue, Arizona's first degree murder statute, provides that "a
person commits first degree murder if...intending or knowing that the person's
conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another with premeditation."
According to the definition adopted by the legislature, "premeditation means that the
defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another
human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of
time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not
done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of
passion.
Holding
We conclude that the legislature intended to relieve the state of the burden of
proving a defendant's thought process by direct evidence. Intended for premeditation,
and the reflection that it require, meaning more than a mere passage of time.
The jury found Thompson guilty of first degree murder and the judge
sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Coolen v. State
Facts
Kellar and his wife, Barbara Caughman Kellar went to a pub in Clearwater at
approximately 4:30 PM, and struck up a conversation with Coolen and his girlfriend
Deborah Morabito. The two couples drank beer and talked for three or four hours and
then went back to the Kellar's home where they continued to party and drink beer in

the backyard. According to nine-year-old Jamie Cuaghman, Babara's son, the two men
fought over a can of beer during the evening.
Coolen and Jamie walked down a nearby dirt road to shoot off fireworks that
Coolen had in his van. Coolen then played tag with Jamie in the yard. During the
game of tag, Coolen pulled Jamie away from the van door, put him on the ground,
took a knife out of his pocket, and warned Jamie not to step on the door again. Jamie
told no one about the incident and went to the house to play Nintendo.
John Kellar escorted Morabito into the house so that she could use the
bathroom. During their absence, Coolen out his hand down Barbara Kellar's shirt. She
pushed Coolen away and did not know where he went. When John Kellar and
Morabito returned from the house a few minutes later, they joined Barbara Kellar at
the van and the three continued their conversation. Suddenly Coolen pulled John
Kellar away and backed him up to the house. John Kellar began to hollar and moan as
Coolen stabbed him. Barbara Kellar ran to assist her husband when he fell to the
ground. She threw her body over his as protection and Coolen struck her several times
with a knife. Jamie came outside in time to see John Kellar and Coolen fighting. He
saw Coolen stabbing his stepfather and his stepfather tried to push Coolen away.
While Coolen was driving away from the scene, he hit a tree and the Kellars' truck.
Kellar died from six stab wounds, including a deep stab wound to the right chest and
one to his right back; he also had defensive stab wounds on his forearm and hand. At
the time of death, Kellar's BAC was 0.22.
Coolen was interviewed at the sheriff's office several hours after the stabbing.
In that taped interview, which was played to the jury, Coolen admitted stabbing Kellar
with the knife found in Morabito's coat. He stated that he had been "playing word
games" with Barbara Kellar when John Kellar "copped an attitude". He saw
"something silver" in Kellar's hand, thought it was a small handgun that Kellar said he
owned, and attacked Kellar to protect himself.
Issues
#1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support and prove Coolen's conviction for
first degree murder.
Reasoning
The State asserts that the following evidence establishes the presumption in
the instant case. Barbara Kellar testified that Coolen suddenly attacked Kellar without
warning or provocation. Jamie Caughman testified that Coolen had threatened him
with the knife earlier in the evening, that he had seen Kellar and Coolen fight over a
beer, and that Kellar tried to fend off Cooler during the attack. The State also contends
that deep stab wounds to Kellar's chest and back and the defensive wounds on his
forearms and hand are indicative of the premeditated nature of the attack and
inconsistent with Coolen's claim of self-defense. However, although this evidence is
consistent with an unlawful killing, we do not find sufficient evidence to prove
premeditation.
While the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted may be circumstantial
evidence of premeditation, the stab wounds here are also consistent with an escalating
fight over a beer (Jamie Caughman's account) or a "preemptive" a in the paranoid
belief that the victim was going to attack first (Coolen's version), this does not provide
sufficient evidence of premeditation. Because the evidence was insufficient to prove
premeditation, we reverse the conviction for 1st degree murder and vacate the death
sentence.

Holding
We reverse Coolen's conviction for the first-degree murder and vacate his
death sentence. However, we find sufficient evidence in the record to sustain a
conviction of a second-degree murder.
Gilbert v. State
Notes
Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert lived together in Fort Lauderdale condominium. They
had been married for 51 years. Emily suffered from osteoporosis and Alzheimer's
disease. Her physician, Dr. Hidalgo, had prescribed Percodan to help alleviate the pain
of the arthritis. The dosage was for moderate pain. There is no doubt that she was in
pain because of the osteoporosis and sometimes confused because of the Alzheimer's.
At trial, appellant's attorney called a couple of Emily's friends, in addition to
Dr. Hidalgo, to testify as to her physical and emotional condition before her death.
On direct examination Lillian Irvin testified that Emily was in a lot of pain
because of the arthritis. One day, while Lillian was in her condominium office, Emily
came in looking for appellant. She was upset and crying. He was in a condominium
meeting, so Lillian called him out of the meeting to come and attend to his wife.
When he arrived Emily said, "I'm so sick, I want to die, I'm so sick...Ros I want to die,
I want to die."
I went in. The gun was up on the top shelf with a clip in it. I loaded it with one
shell, pulled the clip out. I don't like to leave loaded guns laying around. Well, then I
shot her in the head. I felt her pulse. I could still feel it. I thought, Oh, my God, I
loused it up.
I went back to the shop. This time I was shaking. I wasn't cold as ice at all.
Back to the shop, put another round in the gun, came back, put another bullet in her
head. So I somehow got the telephone, and called the security guard downstairs and I
said, "I just killed my wife" andOn cross examination appellant testified that he had never talked with Emily
about killing her and had decided to shoot her from behind so she would not see the
gun. Her doctor testified that Emily could have lived for another five to ten years. She
was never bedridden or completely incapacitated.
Issue
#1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) Emily
Gilbert is dead (2) the death was caused by the criminal act or agency of Roswell
Ward Gilbert and (3) there was a premeditated killing of Emily Gilbert.
Reasoning
The crime of first degree murder as defined in Florida statutes, does not
include the definition of "felonious" as proposed by appellant (involving evil,
malicious or malignant motivation or intent.
Roswell Gilbert, believed his wife wanted done under circumstances and that
he acted in good faith, however euthanasia is not a defense to first degree murder in
Florida and this court has furnished with no law or statute to the contrary.

Holding

Upon trial by jury, Roswell Gilbert was found guilty of the premeditated
murder of his wife, Emily, in contravention of section 782.04, Florida Statutes. He at
age 75 was sentenced to life imprisonment. Under section 775.082, Florida Statutes,
there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. Thus, Mr. Gilbert would be
incarcerated until he reached the age of 100 years before he would be eligible for
release.