State v. Escamilla
291 Neb. 181
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Defendant Marcus M. Escamilla was tried by jury and convicted of first‑degree (premeditated) murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person for the April 16, 2013 shooting death of Kenneth Gunia; sentence: life + consecutive terms, credit for time served.
- Key eyewitnesses: Michele Willcoxon (driver who gave Escamilla a ride; testified Escamilla said “I shot that fool” and appeared “hyped up”), Janella Marks (girlfriend who testified Escamilla said he shot someone and hid a gun), Thomas Williams (jailhouse conversation where Escamilla said he “killed a fool” and described close‑range firing), and neighbors who heard the shooting and observed Escamilla’s movements.
- Physical and medical evidence: autopsy showed a through‑and‑through gunshot to the left lower abdomen with soot ring indicating close range (inches) and perforation of the aorta.
- Circumstantial facts: witnesses described Escamilla’s aggressive control of the encounter (forcing victim toward the car/driver’s seat), placement of shooter and victim in car (shooter in driver’s seat, victim in passenger seat), calm demeanor after shooting, and statements by Escamilla admitting the shooting.
- Procedural posture: Escamilla moved to dismiss felony‑murder theory at close of State’s case (court dismissed that theory and did not instruct jury on it); jury convicted on premeditated murder theory. On appeal, Escamilla’s sole challenge was insufficiency of evidence of premeditation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of deliberate and premeditated malice for first‑degree murder | State: Circumstantial and direct evidence (statements, conduct, close‑range wound, control of encounter, post‑shooting calm) permit inference of premeditation | Escamilla: Evidence insufficient to show premeditation; killing could be instantaneous or lacking prior design | Court: Evidence sufficient; a rational juror could infer intent formed before act and deliberate use of a deadly weapon supported premeditation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70 (discussing standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Juranek, 287 Neb. 846 (same sufficiency standard)
- State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647 (manner of shooting can show deliberation/premeditation)
- State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (definitions of deliberate and premeditated malice)
- State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767 (circumstantial evidence not less probative)
- State v. Taylor, 282 Neb. 297 (premeditation may be instantaneous)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222 (placement of weapon against victim can establish premeditation)