State v. Raymond

• Decision Date: 26 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. C5-88-948,C5-88-948
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James Arthur RAYMOND, Jr., Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 425

440 N.W.2d 425

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James Arthur RAYMOND, Jr., Appellant.

No. C5-88-948.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 26, 1989.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence of intent was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for murder in the first degree.

C. Paul Jones, D. Richard Hellweg, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, State Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

WAHL, Justice.

Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree felony murder in violation of Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.185(3) (1988) and second degree murder in violation of Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.19(1) (1988) for the killing of his neighbor, Ruth Lyke. Neither conviction requires premeditation, but both require evidence of intent to kill. The sole argument on appeal is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of intent to kill as a matter of law. We find the evidence was sufficient and affirm the conviction.

Some time after 2:00 a.m. on June 4, 1986, the then 14 year old defendant decided to rob the house of his 62 year old neighbor, Ruth Lyke. After unsuccessful attempts to enter on the first floor, ¹ defendant gained entry to the Lyke home by slitting the screen to an open bathroom window on the second floor. Defendant claims that he did not believe anyone to be home, since he did not see a car parked out front, and that he was therefore surprised when Ruth Lyke attacked him from behind as he left her bedroom. Although defendant inflicted ten or eleven deep stab wounds in Ruth Lyke's chest and neck, he claims he inflicted the wounds only in self-defense and in an attempt to escape.

Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder, the intentional killing of another in the course of a burglary, as well as second degree murder, an unpremeditated but intentional killing. The convictions were merged for sentencing and defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant admits he committed the murder during the course of a burglary, but contends that he was attacked by the victim and only stabbed her in a panicked attempt to flee. He asks that his first degree murder conviction be reduced to second degree felony murder with a corresponding reduction in sentence.

Both Sec. 609.185(3), first degree felony murder, and Sec. 609.19, intentional second degree murder, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant caused "the death of a human being with intent to affect the death of that person or another * * *." "With intent" means "that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result." Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.02, subd. 9(4) (1988).

Intent is an inference drawn by the jury from the totality of circumstances. See State v. Marsyla, 269 N.W.2d 2, 5-6 (Minn.1978); State v. Alladin, 408 N.W.2d 642, 648 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (rev. denied Aug. 12, 1987). The defendant's statements as to his intentions are not binding on the jury if defendant's acts demonstrate a contrary intent. State v. Lundstrom, 285 Minn. 130, 140, 171 N.W.2d 718, 724-25 (1969). On review, where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court makes a painstaking review of the record, State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211, 167 N.W.2d 55, 57 (1969), viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict and assuming the jury disbelieved testimony in conflict with the result reached. State v. Oevering, 268 N.W.2d 68, 71 (Minn.1978). If...