If you want your wife to be quiet, do not stab her 64 times and then saw through he trachea, her esophagus, her jugular vein, and her carotid artery and claim it was in self defense!
2014-M-264 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Prince Oliver Moore, Jr., Appellant.
2014-M-264 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Prince Oliver Moore, Jr., Appellant.
THE CRIME: Moore was a violent and jealous husband, both in war-torn Liberia and after he moved to Minnesota. His ex-wife testified to his violent abuse of her in both countries. His Minnesota neighbors and other witnesses testified to similar incidents, including a loud and abusive argument on the day of the murder.
In the early morning hours of September 13, 2011, Moore called 911 to report that his wife Mauryn had attacked him with a knife while he was sleeping. Moore said that he grabbed the knife from Mauryn and stabbed her. Moore said that he did not believe Mauryn was alive. After he had sawed through her throat, he flipped her over and stabbed her many times in the back.
When officers arrived at the Moores’ apartment, they found Mauryn’s body lying in the couple’s bedroom with approximately 64 sharp-force injuries. Near her body was a knife that Moore concedes likely came from the kitchen.
After the officers observed cuts on Moore’s chest and neck, he was transported to a hospital. Moore’s treating physician testified that in his professional opinion Moore’s injuries were not life threatening and it was possible that the injuries were self-inflicted.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office conducted an autopsy on Mauryn’s body. The autopsy revealed that Mauryn had approximately 64 sharp-force injuries. These injuries included a 2-inch deep laceration on the front of her neck that cut her trachea, right carotid artery, right jugular vein, and esophagus. According to the medical examiner, that laceration was not a survivable wound. Mauryn also had several lacerations on her fingers and hands, which may have been defensive wounds. She had multiple stab wounds to her back, two of which had very little hemorrhage, indicating that they were likely inflicted after Mauryn had died or lost a significant amount of blood. A neighbor of the Moores testified that he heard the Moores argue at least every
week and that on the morning of the killing he heard them having an unusually serious argument. At one point, he heard what he described as a “scramble” and a female voice yell, “Stop.”
THIS APPEAL: Appellant Prince Oliver Moore, Jr., was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of first-degree premeditated murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012), and one count of first-degree domestic-abuse murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(6) (2012). The trial court convicted Moore of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
On appeal, Moore raises five issues: (1) whether the first-degree premeditated murder statute is unconstitutional; (2) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of premeditation; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on premeditation; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing Moore’s former wife to testify; and (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony under the residual hearsay exception.
Because we conclude that each of these claims is either procedurally barred, without merit, or non-prejudicial, we affirm Moore’s conviction.
On appeal, Moore raises five issues: (1) whether the first-degree premeditated murder statute is unconstitutional; (2) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of premeditation; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on premeditation; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing Moore’s former wife to testify; and (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony under the residual hearsay exception.
Because we conclude that each of these claims is either procedurally barred, without merit, or non-prejudicial, we affirm Moore’s conviction.
1. Appellant’s constitutional challenges to Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012), are procedurally barred because he failed to raise the challenges in the trial court.
2. The evidence of premeditation was sufficient to support appellant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction.
3. The trial court’s instruction on premeditation was not erroneous.
4. The trial court did not commit reversible error when it admitted into evidence testimony from appellant’s former wife under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2012).
5. Appellant failed to establish that any alleged error in admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements had a substantial effect on the verdict.
Affirmed.
Page (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment