## Facts

- Prince Oliver Moore, Jr. called 911 reporting he stabbed his wife, Mauryn Moore, in self-defense after she allegedly attacked him with a knife.
- Police found Mauryn dead in the couple’s apartment bedroom.
- Mauryn suffered 64 stab wounds, including a deep throat wound that severed vital structures; she also had defensive wounds on her hands and wounds on her back consistent with continued stabbing after collapse or severe blood loss.
- Moore had shallow wounds on his neck and chest; medical testimony supported an inference they were self-inflicted and inconsistent with a defensive struggle.
- The knife used was ordinarily kept in the kitchen, supporting an inference it was retrieved and brought to the bedroom.
- Evidence showed the couple argued frequently; on the night of the killing they fought for over an hour before the stabbing.
- The State introduced evidence of Moore’s prior threats, assaults, jealousy, and controlling behavior toward Mauryn, and evidence that she wanted a divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moore killed with premeditation, as required for first-degree premeditated murder.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting relationship evidence of Moore’s prior conduct toward the victim, and whether any error substantially influenced the verdict.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Moore’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release.
- The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find premeditation based on the prolonged confrontation, retrieval and movement of the knife, the number and nature of wounds, and the undermining of Moore’s self-defense account.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting relationship evidence to explain the relationship history and context; any arguable overbreadth did not substantially affect the verdict given the strength of the other evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Premeditation requires that the defendant considered, planned, prepared for, or decided to commit the killing before its commission; “some appreciable time” must pass between forming the intent to kill and the act.
- Premeditation may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the nature and number of wounds, procurement or movement of a weapon, conduct before and after the killing, and relationship history indicating motive or hostility.
- In domestic-abuse prosecutions, evidence of the defendant’s prior similar conduct toward the victim may be admitted to illuminate the history of the relationship, subject to balancing probative value against unfair prejudice.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a showing that an error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conviction because the circumstantial evidence supported a rational finding that Moore had time to form and act on an intent to kill, and because the relationship evidence was properly admitted to provide context and prove intent and motive without unfairly affecting the verdict.


State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. 2014)