Miller v. State
350 P.3d 264
Wyo.2015Background
- On March 26, 2013, Thomas Lee Miller shot his wife seven times as she fled their home; she died from a chest wound. He then threatened the victim's mother.
- Miller was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery; tried by jury in February 2014.
- Jury was given Instruction No. 14 (modeled on Wyo. Crim. P.J.I. 21.01D2) defining malice as intentional acts done without legal justification or done in a manner indicating hatred, ill will, or hostility.
- Miller did not object to the instruction at trial; jury convicted him of second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. He was sentenced to 60 years to life (murder) plus consecutive 8–10 years.
- After Miller’s appeal was docketed, this Court decided Wilkerson v. State, which held the pattern instruction was legally insufficient because second-degree murder malice requires acting "recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by giving a jury instruction inconsistent with Wilkerson | Miller: Instruction No. 14 failed to define malice as required by Wilkerson | State: Instruction conformed to law at trial; any error should be reviewed for plain error and Miller must show prejudice | Court: No plain error — Miller failed to show a reasonable probability of a different verdict absent the instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkerson v. State, 336 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2014) (malice for second-degree murder is reckless conduct manifesting extreme indifference to human life)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (an error may be "plain" at the time of appellate consideration if law changed after trial)
- Jones v. State, 256 P.3d 527 (Wyo. 2011) (plain error review standard applies when no contemporaneous objection)
- Rathbun v. State, 257 P.3d 29 (Wyo. 2011) (elements required to establish plain error)
- Pendleton v. State, 180 P.3d 212 (Wyo. 2008) (material prejudice requires reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome without the error)