Jeremiah Ethan Samuel Shull v. State
388 P.3d 763
Wyo.2017Background
- On Oct. 19, 2014 Jeremiah Shull entered the home where his estranged wife was staying, encountered her sleeping with Jacob Willenbrecht, and repeatedly stabbed and slashed Willenbrecht, killing him; Shull admitted the killing but claimed it was in a sudden heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter).
- Shull was tried on first‑degree murder (premeditated malice), aggravated assault/battery, and strangulation; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and related charges and the court sentenced him to life as a matter of law for murder.
- Defense presented evidence and argument supporting a sudden‑heat‑of‑passion mitigator; the district court nevertheless instructed the jury using pattern instructions that treated sudden heat of passion as an element to be proved rather than a mitigator the State must disprove.
- The court used a stepped verdict form directing the jury to decide first‑degree murder before considering lesser offenses, and Instruction 35 (late in the charge) stated that a finding of sudden heat of passion negates malice.
- Shull also objected to admission of a recorded dispatcher call in which his father speculated about Shull’s intentions; the court admitted the speculative portion over objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shull) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Allocation of burden for sudden heat of passion | State argued it need only prove malice; sudden heat of passion was an element for the defendant to disprove | Shull argued due process required the State to prove absence of sudden heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt (Mullaney) | Reversed: instruction improperly allocated burden to State in a way that effectively prevented consideration of mitigator; error was structural and requires new trial |
| 2. Stepped verdict form and instruction sequencing | State argued Instruction 35 and stepped form cured any issue | Shull argued the stepped form plus untethered malice definition prevented jury from considering sudden heat of passion when deciding murder | Court held the structure compounded the burden‑allocation error; jury may have been prevented from considering mitigator; retrial required |
| 3. Whether an intentional killing can be voluntary manslaughter | State contended an intentional killing with conscious decision to kill is inconsistent with manslaughter | Shull argued heat‑of‑passion killings can be intentional and still mitigate murder to manslaughter | Court clarified voluntary manslaughter can involve an intentional killing; defendant may have subjective intent to kill and still be guilty only of manslaughter if mitigated by sudden heat of passion |
| 4. Admissibility of father’s recorded speculation to dispatcher | State allowed the recording as context and relevant predictive statement | Shull argued speculative portion was improper lay opinion and violated W.R.E. 602/701 | Court held the speculative predictive statement was inadmissible under Rules 602 and 701 (though retrial was ordered on other grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (Due Process requires prosecution to prove absence of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt when issue is properly presented)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (misdescription of burden of proof in jury instructions can be structural error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (certain instructional errors are subject to harmless‑error review when properly preserved)
- Johnson v. State, 356 P.3d 767 (Wyo. 2015) (malice in first‑degree murder must include proof of hatred, ill will, or hostility along with intentional act without justification)
- Keffer v. State, 860 P.2d 1118 (Wyo. 1993) (explaining voluntary manslaughter as intentional killing upon sudden heat of passion that negates malice)