Midgett v. State

The next two cases--Midgett and Forrest--give us a chance to consider whether the concept of "premeditation and deliberation" is a sensible way to divide murder into degrees. Each case, in its own way, is based on disturbing facts. As you read the cases, consider these questions:

1. What crime was Ronnie Midgett convicted of? What are the elements of that crime? What did he do? What is his argument on appeal?

2. According to the Court, what did the evidence suggest was Midgett’s state of mind regarding his son’s death? Why did the court reverse Midgett’s conviction for first-degree murder? Do you agree?

3. What crime was John Forrest convicted of? What are the elements of that crime? What did he do? What is his argument on appeal?

4. What circumstances does the Forrest court say can provide evidence of premeditation and deliberation? What is the court’s holding? Why? Do you agree?

5. What are the crime prevention (utilitarian) and punishment (retributive) arguments behind the grading of murder based on “premeditation and deliberation”? Do you think it is a sensible way to divide murder into degrees? If you were the sentencing judge, what sentence would you give Midgett? What sentence would you give Forrest?

For a thorough exploration of the challenge presented by the "premeditation and deliberation" standard, see Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Ploting Premditation's Demise, 75 Law and Contemporary Problems 83 (2012), available here.