pointing out that the jury was actually instructed on the definitions of "intent" and "premeditation," and arguing that this sufficed to draw the jury's attention to the difference
How later courts described this case
- pointing out that the jury was actually instructed on the definitions of "intent" and "premeditation," and arguing that this sufficed to draw the jury's attention to the difference
- stating the standard of review in lesser included defense cases
- referring to RCW 10.61.006
- intentional murder is lesser included offense in premeditated murder
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Madsen, C.J.
¶47 (concurring in the dissent) — I agree with the majority that Joel Condon was entitled to a jury *327 instruction on second degree intentional murder as a lesser included offense to aggravated premeditated murder. However, considering that Condon bases his challenge to the failure to instruct on a lesser offense on lack of premeditation and the jury convicted Condon of premeditated murder and first degree burglary, as well as the fact that the jury followed the instructions, which included an admonishment not to consider felony murder unless it could not agree on aggravated premeditated murder, I am convinced that the error in failing to give the lesser included instruction was harmless in this case. Therefore, I concur with the dissent in its harmless error analysis and its result.