AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In September 2015, the defendant and an accomplice were asked by the victim to help remove tree branches for twenty dollars. Believing the payment was to be twenty dollars each, they were dissatisfied when paid twenty dollars in total. They left but returned later, confronting the victim. During this confrontation, the accomplice shot and killed the victim. The defendant, who had driven the accomplice back to the scene, was later questioned by police and admitted his involvement. He was charged as an accessory to murder and convicted of second-degree murder following a trial (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) his waiver of the right to remain silent was not validly obtained, (2) the court erred in denying jury instructions on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter, and (3) the court failed to properly consider expert testimony at the amenability hearing (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the defendant validly waived his constitutional rights, and the district court's decisions regarding jury instructions and the amenability hearing were correct (paras 4, 14, 23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant validly waived his statutory right to remain silent prior to questioning by law enforcement.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's request to instruct the jury on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the expert testimony presented at the defendant’s amenability hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the defendant for second-degree murder (para 1).

Reasons

• B. Zamora, Judge (J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, and Kristina Bogardus, Judge, concurring): The court found that the defendant's waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, considering the totality of circumstances and statutory factors for juveniles. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to jury instructions on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter due to the lack of evidence supporting these defenses. Finally, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant not amenable to treatment, considering the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's maturity, and the likelihood of rehabilitation (paras 4-27).