## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Shanon Patrick Thomas for first-degree murder in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 113, and 1153.
- Thomas and his girlfriend, Marissa Mackey, suspected Thomas’s former girlfriend and Mackey’s neighbor, Dawn Starlin, of vandalizing Mackey’s house.
- Justina Tuttle and Waylon Wabasha testified that before the group left Mackey’s house to go to a bar, Thomas left the house and returned shortly afterward with a gun, which he stored at Mackey’s house.
- Thomas’s sister and her boyfriend testified that Thomas took the gun from their home.
- After several hours, Tuttle, Wabasha, Thomas, and Mackey returned from the bar to Mackey’s house.
- Tuttle and Wabasha testified that Thomas then left the others, went outside, and returned a few minutes later stating that he had shot Starlin several times and killed her.
- At trial, Thomas testified that Starlin taunted him about his relationship with Mackey, that he picked up the gun and headed toward Starlin’s yard, and that Starlin was unarmed.
- Thomas claimed he did not mean to shoot Starlin and acted out of rage triggered by Starlin’s taunts.
- The jury found Thomas guilty of first-degree murder, and the district court denied his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas acted with premeditation, as required for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Thomas’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal based on alleged insufficient evidence of premeditation.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Thomas’s conviction.
- The court held that the trial evidence permitted a rational jury to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the district court properly denied Thomas’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a sufficiency challenge, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the government; it does not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations.
- For first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111, premeditation does not require extended planning and may be formed in a short time; no fixed period of reflection is required.
- Premeditation may be inferred from circumstantial proof, including evidence of planning activity (such as obtaining and positioning a weapon), motive, and the manner of the killing (including multiple shots).
- The jury may reject a defendant’s account that the shooting resulted only from rage or intoxication when other evidence supports an inference that the defendant formed an intent to kill.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Thomas’s first-degree murder conviction because the record allowed the jury to infer premeditation from Thomas’s retrieval and storage of the gun hours earlier, his motive tied to the dispute with Starlin, his shooting of an unarmed victim multiple times, and his immediate post-shooting admission that he had shot and killed her, making the Rule 29 denial proper.


United States v. Thomas, 664 F. 3d 217 (2011)