PEOPLE OF MI V PALOK GASHAJ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 23, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 248658
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 02-185958-FC
PALOK GASHAJ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Neff and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of first-degree premeditated
murder, MCL 750.316, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL
750.227b. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the
first-degree premeditated murder conviction and to two years in prison for the felony-firearm
conviction. We affirm.
Defendant’s only issue on appeal is that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence
to support his conviction by failing to establish the elements of first-degree premeditated murder.
We disagree. In sufficiency of the evidence claims, this Court reviews the evidence de novo in a
light most favorable to the prosecutor and determines whether a rational trier of fact could find
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe,
440 Mich 508, 516; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable
inferences that arise from the evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the
crime. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
To establish the offense of first-degree premeditated murder, the prosecution must prove
that the defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the act of killing was premeditated and
deliberate. MCL 750.316(1)(a); People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 642; 588 NW2d 480 (1998).
Premeditation and deliberation characterize a thought process undisturbed by “hot blood.”
People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). Premeditation and
deliberation require sufficient time to allow the defendant to take a second look and can be
inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing. Id. Factors that may be considered to
establish premeditation include: (1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the
victim; (2) the defendant's actions before and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the
killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted. Id.
-1-
The prosecution produced sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to
support defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction. Specifically, a finding of
premeditation was supported by the circumstances surrounding the killing. The evidence shows
some time span between defendant’s initial homicidal intent and the ultimate action. Defendant
testified that one or two minutes after he decided to shoot his wife, Zamira Gashaj, he fired the
first two shots at Zamira and missed. Zamira reacted by jumping out of the bed and asked, “Why
are you doing this to me?” Zamira then shoved defendant, but defendant shoved Zamira to the
floor and shot her in the head and all over her body as she lay on the floor. Defendant’s
testimony supports the conclusion that he did not instantly or impulsively attack Zamira, or
inflict the deadly wounds within only seconds. A reasonable jury could find that between the
first two shots that missed Zamira and those that killed her, there was sufficient time for
defendant to take a second look at the nature of his actions. Furthermore, defendant took time to
reload the gun, which would have given him another opportunity to contemplate his actions
before firing more shots.
Defendant’s testimony regarding the shooting was supported by the investigator’s
testimony that two bullets were found in the headboard and the pillow and that no blood was
found in bed, indicating defendant missed with the first two shots that were aimed at Zamira
when she was in bed. Other spent bullets and cartridges were recovered near Zamira’s body on
the floor. The blood splatter stains were low near the bottom of the dresser, which indicated that
Zamira was on the floor when she was shot.
Zamira’s autopsy also revealed that she received seven gunshots to her body, including
three gunshots to the head and one gunshot to the neck. Six of the seven gunshots would have
been fatal. Of the three gunshots to the head, two were behind the right ear and would have been
instantaneously fatal. The third gunshot would have been fatal within a few minutes. The
location of the wounds indicates that the shots were directed at causing death. The medical
examiner also testified that residue was found, indicating that defendant shot Zamira, while she
was lying on the floor, at close range. The wound by the right ear was made while the gun was
touching the skin or within two inches of the ear. A large amount of soot around and inside the
wound to Zamira’s neck indicates that the shot was fired at close range. The jury could certainly
infer that firing the shots at Zamira’s body, especially her head, and pulling the trigger at close
range is a deliberate, cold-blooded act that suggests premeditation. This is especially so where
defendant first shot at Zamira twice and missed, and later emptied the gun and reloaded the gun
to fire more fatal shots.
In addition, defendant’s statement to the police shows that for more than one week,
defendant and Zamira had been arguing about whether she should quit her job. After the alleged
argument with Zamira and his brother-in-law, Roland Popaj, on the morning of April 15, 2002,
around 5:00 a.m., defendant put the loaded gun in his pocket and paced around the house,
checking the doors and windows. Defendant testified that for approximately two hours he was
contemplating whether to kill Zamira and what the consequences of his killing of Zamira would
be for his children. Defendant decided to shoot Zamira around 7:30 a.m., went into the bedroom
and started shooting. We find that two hours between the alleged argument at 5:00 a.m. and the
shooting at 7:30 a.m. was sufficient time for cool reflection. Furthermore, on the stand,
defendant admitted that the shooting was not accidental and it was his intention to kill Zamira.
This was significant evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that defendant
-2-
premeditated and deliberately planned to kill Zamira. In sum, all the above evidence was
sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder.
Defendant argued that the evidence showed that he either acted in self-defense or that he
shot Zamira because he panicked and lost control. Here there is no evidence that defendant was
in any danger of death or serious bodily harm. Zamira was not armed and was lying on the floor
when defendant shot her multiple times. Defendant was not justified in using deadly force to
defend himself. Even defendant’s version of the events did not support a self-defense claim.
The prosecutor met the requisite burden of presenting evidence from which a rational trier of fact
could conclude that all the elements of first-degree murder were proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
