What is the difference between premeditation and intent?

[Alan_Smithee]

I understand that the difference in many jurisdictions between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder is that 1st degree murder includes both intent and premeditation on the part of the perpetrator, while 2nd degree includes only intent. (Unintentional killing would be classified as manslaughter.)

I also understand that premeditation can be formed instantaneously, and doesn’t require any extended thought or planning.

How can one form am intent to kill (and commit an act to carry out that intent) without premeditation? What element does premeditation add that intent doesn’t already include?

[OldGuy]

Intent can be formed on the spur of the moment.

You walk into your bedroom and find your spouse in bed with someone whom you shoot and kill – that’s intent but no premeditation assuming you didn’t plan before hand it was going to happen.

[bob_2]

Surely, intent in the above example is the ‘intent’ to kill. There would be no intent if you aimed to injure or scare him and the shot went wild.

Premeditation would involve planning and preparation (buying a gun?) and then setting the guy up - you might still not intend to kill the blighter though.

[jtur88]

If you suddenly pull out a gun and shoot someone, there is still “intent” there. “Pre-meditation” implies that you thought through the murder prior to having the opportunity to do so. Premeditation indicates a time span between establishing the intent and realizing the opportunity.

Not a lawyer, but that’s what the words mean in plain English, which might have some bearing on legal interpretation.

[Alan_Smithee]

All of the answers so far make sense according to "what the words mean in plain English (as jtur88 put it, but my understanding from previous threads (and I’m not at a computer, so I can’t easily find a cite at the moment) is that like intent, premeditation takes no time at all to form, and can form in the instant between seeing your spouse in bed with someone else and deciding to pull the trigger (even if you already had the gun in your hand, like a tv cop). In fact, it seems to me that deciding to pull the trigger would count as premeditation, if it happens with the intent to kill.

[harmonicamoon]

Somewhat related.

I was a juror at a trial. I guy entered a restaurant, from the parking lot, and through a back door.

He saw some cash on the counter, and stole it. Our job, as jurors, was to determine if he entered the establishment with the intent to commit a crime. Or, he just saw the opportunity and took the cash.

The outcome of the decision was either a misdemeanor (no intent to commit a crime), or a felony (he intended to cause mischief). So, he would go to jail, or the big house.

[Little_Nemo]

@Alan_Smithee

All of the answers so far make sense according to "what the words mean in plain English (as jtur88 put it, but my understanding from previous threads (and I’m not at a computer, so I can’t easily find a cite at the moment) is that like intent, premeditation takes no time at all to form, and can form in the instant between seeing your spouse in bed with someone else and deciding to pull the trigger (even if you already had the gun in your hand, like a tv cop). In fact, it seems to me that deciding to pull the trigger would count as premeditation, if it happens with the intent to kill.

I’m not a lawyer but from what I understand this wouldn’t count as premeditation. My understanding is that there has to be some period of time between when you decide to commit the crime and when you actually commit the crime in order for there to be premeditation.

[Johnny_L.A]

@OldGuy

You walk into your bedroom and find your spouse in bed with someone…

A guy walks into his bedroom and sees his wife in bed with another man. The husband pulls out a gun and holds it to his own temple. His wife and her lover laugh at him. The husband says, ‘Don’t laugh! You’re next!’

[Lakai]

@Alan_Smithee

All of the answers so far make sense according to "what the words mean in plain English (as jtur88 put it, but my understanding from previous threads (and I’m not at a computer, so I can’t easily find a cite at the moment) is that like intent, premeditation takes no time at all to form, and can form in the instant between seeing your spouse in bed with someone else and deciding to pull the trigger (even if you already had the gun in your hand, like a tv cop). In fact, it seems to me that deciding to pull the trigger would count as premeditation, if it happens with the intent to kill.

I think your confusion stems from the fact that using are not using the legal definition of premeditation. Ignore what you think it means and focus on how judges and statutes define it. Here is one definition:

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing. Federal Model Jury Instructions.

[harmonicamoon]

@Johnny_L.A

A guy walks into his bedroom and sees his wife in bed with another man. The husband pulls out a gun and holds it to his own temple. His wife and her lover laugh at him. The husband says, ‘Don’t laugh! You’re next!’

nm

[Hail_Ants]

@Alan_Smithee

What element does premeditation add that intent doesn’t already include?

Time. Time to plan, prepare, and carry out the act. Determining how *much *time constitutes ‘premeditation’ is the job of DAs, judges and grand juries…

[Ranger_Jeff]

The time from the instant you spot your wife in bed with the guy, through the time it takes you to get your gun from the car, drawer, or safe, unsafe it, and ends when you’re back in your bedroom pointing the gun at someone. A prosecutor could say there were plenty of opportunities to think it over in that time.

[Giles]

@Hail_Ants

… Determining how *much *time constitutes ‘premeditation’ is the job of DAs, judges and grand juries…

Isn’t it also the job of petty juries, i.e., the juries used in criminal trials?

[don_t_ask]

@Alan_Smithee

What element does premeditation add that intent doesn’t already include?

Just ask Andy Dusfrene if you see him around.

[flatlined]

@Lakai

I think your confusion stems from the fact that using are not using the legal definition of premeditation. Ignore what you think it means and focus on how judges and statutes define it. Here is one definition:

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing. Federal Model Jury Instructions.

Sadly, I my only time serving on a jury was for a very ugly federal murder case. (Why, oh why did my only jury duty have to be that one.)

According to what we were told, premeditation meant thinking “I’m going to kill her.” and then actually stabbing her to death. Even if you walk into your bedroom and see your wife with your best friend, it takes a few split seconds to process and then decide to kill her/them. During that time, you have planned to kill them, so its premeditated.

[Hail_Ants]

@Giles

Isn’t it also the job of petty juries, i.e., the juries used in criminal trials?

It depends. Some jurisdictions allow trial juries leeway in deciding a verdict, finding them not guilty of 1st degree but guilty of 2nd. Some don’t, they only get to decide guilty or not on the charges given.

[Alan_Smithee]

Here is a thread in which the OP (an attorney in the case being discussed, I believe) states that “Premeditation can happen in an instant, and only requires a moment’s reflection.” He also gives the classic example of unpremeditated murder in which “you walk in on a spouse mid-coitus with lover,” even though I can’t see how you could commit murder in such a situation without even an instant of thought.

Here is a post from another thread complete with cites to Minnesota state law and a federal court decision. Later in that thread, Cheesesteak asks essentially my question here, and Really Not All That Bright asserts that premeditation and intent are distinct elements, but doesn’t really explain how, given that the instantaneous thought forming the intent to kill seems identical with premeditation as defined in that law. He or she does suggest that that law has been modified by the court so that some time is required, but it’s not clear how much or what the actual distinction is between 1st and 2nd degree murder. And of course, the first thread suggests that some jurisdictions still accept that premeditation can be instantaneous and virtually simultaneous with the act of killing.

[SpyOne]

I am surprised at some of the definitions of premeditation used above. Apparently the law has blurred the line significantly.

Still, I can concoct a scenario where the person could have intent but not premeditation. If, at the time you decide you would like the other guy to be dead (say, he’s in bed with your spouse), you happened to have a weapon already in your hand (because you always do or whatever), then you could well have killed him before you had a chance to reflect.

The crude rule I learned was that the law differentiates between each of the following:
I didn’t mean for that to happen
I didn’t mean to kill him
I knew it might kill him, but I wasn’t trying to.
At the time I did that, I meant to kill him.
I planned to kill him.

You can see how these might play out:
The gun went off by accident
I didn’t know there was anybody standing in the direction I shot.
I was aiming for his legs.
DIE!
I’ll get my gun and then he’ll see.

And the blurry spot in the middle between those last two: DIE! Oh look, there’s a gun!
I should think instantaneous premeditation would be very hard to convince a jury of. But then, I don’t even play a lawyer on TV.

[Lakai]

@Alan_Smithee

Here is a thread in which the OP (an attorney in the case being discussed, I believe) states that “Premeditation can happen in an instant, and only requires a moment’s reflection.” He also gives the classic example of unpremeditated murder in which “you walk in on a spouse mid-coitus with lover,” even though I can’t see how you could commit murder in such a situation without even an instant of thought.

Here is a post from another thread complete with cites to Minnesota state law and a federal court decision. Later in that thread, Cheesesteak asks essentially my question here, and Really Not All That Bright asserts that premeditation and intent are distinct elements, but doesn’t really explain how, given that the instantaneous thought forming the intent to kill seems identical with premeditation as defined in that law. He or she does suggest that that law has been modified by the court so that some time is required, but it’s not clear how much or what the actual distinction is between 1st and 2nd degree murder. And of course, the first thread suggests that some jurisdictions still accept that premeditation can be instantaneous and virtually simultaneous with the act of killing.

The Minnesota case cited in your link has since been clarified. From State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 89 (Minn. 2014):

To be guilty of first degree premeditated murder, defendant must have caused the death of Debra Moore with premeditation and with intent to effect her death. Minn.Stat. § 609.185(1). The legislature has defined “premeditation” to mean “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” Minn.Stat. § 609.18. If only intent were proven without premeditation, defendant would be guilty of murder in the second degree. Minn.Stat. § 609.19(1). This court, and many other courts, have struggled to give effect to the distinction between these two degrees of homicide. That distinction is concerned with the time involved and the defendant’s state of mind.3 Premeditation, by definition, requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act. To say, as we said in State v. Neumann, 262 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1978), that premeditation may occur “virtually instantaneously” with the formation of the intent to kill blurs the line between first and second degree murder when it is evident that the legislature intended the line to be sufficiently distinct to justify punishing persons convicted of the different crimes differently. While we have long recognized that premeditation requires no specific period of time for deliberation,4 State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 75, 113 N.W.2d 578, 581 (1961), or extensive planning, State v. Richardson, 393 N.W.2d at 664, the state must always prove that, after the defendant formed the intent to kill, some appreciable time passed during which the consideration, planning, preparation or determination required by Minn. Stat. § 609.18 prior to the commission of the act took place.

You can rest assured that you were not the only confused by Minnesota’s distinction between premeditation and intent.

[Northern_Piper]

@Hail_Ants

It depends. Some jurisdictions allow trial juries leeway in deciding a verdict, finding them not guilty of 1st degree but guilty of 2nd. Some don’t, they only get to decide guilty or not on the charges given.

Sure, but in that case the jury is still deciding whether or not there was premeditation. If they conclude there was premeditation, then they convict on first degree murder. If they conclude there was no premedication, then they acquit on first degree murder.

Either way they go, they are deciding if there was premeditation.