Mills v. People, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164523

On Jan. 13, 2000 Mills went to Boniface Clement’s yard; a verbal demand (“Give it to me”) and an ensuing struggle occurred; Clement was shot and died.
Mills was charged with two theories of first‑degree murder (premeditated killing; murder in perpetration/attempted perpetration of robbery), two counts of attempted robbery, and two weapons counts; a jury convicted on all counts on Feb. 22, 2002.
Mills filed a pro se notice of appeal that initially misidentified the case number; the Appellate Court later allowed the appeal on liberal construction.
On appeal Mills raised: (1) insufficiency of the evidence as to premeditation and attempted robbery; (2) prosecutorial misconduct in opening/closing/examination; (3) erroneous self‑defense jury instruction (objective vs. subjective); and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.
The trial record included eyewitness testimony describing Mills demanding property, a struggle over a gun, and Mills firing at close range; Mills testified he acted in self‑defense and that Clement was the aggressor.
The Superior Court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient, prosecutorial misconduct non‑prejudicial, the jury instruction error non‑reversible, and the ineffective‑assistance claim unsuitable for resolution on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — Premeditation for 1st‑degree murder	Mills: killing lacked evidence of premeditation/deliberation; it occurred during a struggle	Government: circumstantial facts (demands, weapon, struggle, standing over victim, close‑range shot) support premeditation	Affirmed — a reasonable jury could infer premeditation from the evidence
Sufficiency — Attempted robbery	Mills: no proof he intended/unlawfully attempted to take property by force/fear	Government: repeated commands (“Give it to me”), victim’s refusals, and struggle show attempted robbery	Affirmed — evidence permitted a jury to find attempted robbery
Prosecutorial misconduct	Mills: opening/closing rhetoric, irrelevant witness questioning, display of autopsy photo, vouching, and misstatements prejudiced trial	Government: most remarks were brief or mitigated by instructions; some were improper but not outcome‑determinative	Affirmed — errors were non‑reversible; no prejudice undermining trial fairness
Jury instruction on self‑defense	Mills: trial court misstated law by using “objective” rather than “subjective” belief standard	Government: instruction error did not affect fairness because Mills’ self‑defense claim contained no special subjective elements	Affirmed — plain‑error review found no prejudice warranting reversal

United States v. Taftsiou, 144 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard of review for sufficiency claims)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (jury verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001) (applying Jackson standard)
Gov’t of the V.I. v. Lake, 362 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1966) (definition and indicators of deliberate/premeditated killing)
Gov’t of the V.I. v. Charles, 72 F.3d 401 (3d Cir. 1995) (premeditation may be inferred from weapon use and absence of provocation)
United States v. Lawrence, 349 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2003) (circumstantial evidence showing targeted, close‑range shooting supports premeditation)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (prosecutorial vouching is improper and may prejudice jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004) (not every ambiguity in jury instructions is a due process violation)