## Facts

- Jaquan Walters distributed a $10 bag of marijuana to Lamar Moorer, who refused to pay.
- Walters and Moorer engaged in a fistfight that ended after several minutes.
- Walters left the scene on a bicycle, went to a nearby building, and retrieved a loaded firearm he had hidden on the roof.
- About six minutes after the fight ended, Walters returned to where Moorer stood unarmed and talking on his cellphone.
- Walters deliberately drew the firearm and shot Moorer multiple times at close range, including continued shooting after Moorer fell.
- Moorer died from the gunshot wounds.
- Walters was charged with marijuana distribution and killing a person with a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).
- The parties largely stipulated to the conduct; a three-day bench trial focused on whether the killing was murder (malice aforethought) or manslaughter.
- The district court found malice aforethought, treated the killing as murder under § 924(j)(1), and imposed a 300-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Walters acted with malice aforethought, making the killing murder rather than manslaughter for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).
2. Whether the district court clearly erred, after a bench trial, in rejecting a heat-of-passion theory and finding malice aforethought.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of malice aforethought.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in concluding the killing constituted murder under § 924(j)(1), not manslaughter.

## Legal Principles

- A sufficiency challenge asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- After a bench trial, the district court’s factual findings, including findings on mental state, are reviewed for clear error.
- Malice aforethought may be inferred from intentional killing or intent to cause serious bodily harm, and may also be inferred from extremely reckless conduct showing extreme indifference to human life.
- Evidence of a pause after an altercation, retrieval of a firearm, return to the scene, and a deliberate, close-range, repeated shooting of an unarmed victim supports an inference of malice aforethought and permits rejection of a heat-of-passion manslaughter theory.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld Walters’s § 924(j)(1) murder conviction and 300-month sentence, concluding that the interval after the fight, Walters’s retrieval of a hidden gun, and the deliberate close-range shooting provided sufficient evidence of malice aforethought and supported the district court’s murder finding.


United States v. Walters, 775 F. App’x 25 (2d Cir. 2019)