## Facts

- Robert W. Lindamood discussed robbing his 77-year-old neighbor, Roy George, including a plan to enter the home, knock George out, and take money.
- A friend provided Lindamood gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.
- Lindamood obtained a wooden coffee-table leg from his mother’s house, placed it in a bag, and went to George’s residence.
- When George refused him entry, Lindamood forced his way inside.
- Lindamood wore gloves but did not conceal his identity, despite knowing George could recognize him.
- Lindamood repeatedly struck George with the table leg, causing severe blunt-force injuries and multiple fractures.
- After George was unconscious, Lindamood searched for valuables and left with cash and silverware; George later died from the injuries.
- In a written statement, Lindamood described his preparations and wrote, “Just before going to George’s house to kill him …”.
- The State charged premeditated first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances (burglary and robbery) and a deadly weapon allegation; a jury convicted Lindamood of aggravated first-degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Lindamood’s prior burglary conviction for impeachment under ER 609 due to unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The conviction was affirmed.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, permitted a rational trier of fact to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior burglary conviction for impeachment; its probative value on credibility was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- On a sufficiency challenge, the reviewing court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Premeditation may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including planning activity, preparation of a weapon, conduct suggesting a formed design to kill, and the manner of the killing.
- A defendant’s statement reflecting an intent formed before the killing may constitute direct evidence of premeditation.
- Under ER 609, admission of prior convictions for impeachment is committed to the trial court’s discretion, requiring a probative-value versus unfair-prejudice balancing; reversal requires an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Lindamood’s aggravated first-degree murder conviction, concluding that his advance preparations, his statement that he went to the victim’s house “to kill him,” and the nature of the beating supported a finding of premeditation, and that admitting his prior burglary conviction for impeachment was within the trial court’s discretion.


State v. Lindamood, 39 Wash. App. 517 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)