State v. Lindamood
Washington Court of Appeals
39 Wash. App. 517 (1985)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Robert Lindamood (defendant) discussed a plan with his friend Dennis to attack and rob Roy George, his 77-year-old neighbor. Lindamood planned to enter George’s house, knock him out, and steal his money. Dennis gave Lindamood gloves to wear during the attack so that he would not leave fingerprints. Lindamood took a coffee table leg from his mother’s house and placed it in a bag. Lindamood knocked on George’s door and forced his way into the house when George did not let him in. He wore the gloves, but did not wear a mask, even though George knew him and would have been able to identify him. Lindamood started hitting George with the table leg and beat him severely, inflicting many fractures and other injuries. After George was unconscious, Lindamood went through the house looking for money, and eventually left with some cash and silverware. George died of his injuries. In a written statement, Lindamood confessed his preparations for the crime, beginning with the statement “Just before going to George’s house to kill him . . . .” Lindamood was charged with premeditated murder aggravated by the commission of burglary and robbery. Lindamood was convicted of aggravated first-degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon. Lindamood appealed, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support the required element of premeditation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scholfield, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.