Barnett v. State
783 So. 2d 927, 2000 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 28, 2000 WL 218166 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama law, the felony-murder rule does not apply when the underlying felony is an assault that directly results in the victim's death, as such an assault merges with the homicide itself, preventing its use as a predicate felony and thus avoiding 'bootstrapping' that would circumvent specific murder intent requirements.
Facts:
- On October 17, 1998, Morris Givens and his brother Andrae Barnett went to Daphne Golson's house to pick up Givens's daughter, Jamari.
- At Golson's home, Givens and Golson argued over Jamari's attire, leading Givens to decide against taking the child to the fair.
- Givens then asked Daphne Golson's boyfriend, Kevon Moses, to talk outside; Moses agreed and followed Givens and Barnett into the front yard, where Moses began shouting for Golson and held a garden hoe before putting it down and fighting Givens.
- Golson intervened, stopping the fight between Givens and Moses, and began arguing with Givens, while Moses and Barnett started a separate altercation.
- Barnett struck Moses in the back of the head with a garden hoe after Moses tripped over Givens's feet and fell.
- Kevon Moses died as a result of the blow to the head.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrae Barnett was indicted and convicted of felony murder, a violation of § 13A-6-2(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975, by a trial court.
- Barnett was sentenced to 50 years in the state penitentiary, ordered to pay $250 to the victim's compensation fund, restitution of $659.90, and court costs.
- Barnett appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, asserting that the trial court erred by allowing him to be charged with felony murder when the underlying felony was assault, arguing that assault was an essential part of the homicide itself.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a felonious first-degree assault, which directly causes the victim's death, merge with the resulting homicide and therefore cannot serve as the underlying felony for a felony-murder charge under Alabama law?
Opinions:
Majority - Baschab, J.
No, felonious assaults that result in the victim's death merge with the homicide and therefore cannot serve as an underlying felony for purposes of the felony-murder rule under Alabama law. The court adopted the 'merger doctrine,' citing `People v. Ireland` from California, which holds that the felony-murder rule's application is overly broad when the underlying felony is an integral part of the homicide itself. To allow a felonious assault on the homicide victim to be the predicate felony would effectively preclude a jury from considering malice aforethought in the majority of homicides, a form of 'bootstrapping' that lacks logical or legal support. The court reasoned that using assault as the underlying felony would offend the statutory construction and legislative intent of Alabama's homicide laws, particularly §§ 13A-6-2 and 13A-6-3, which define murder and manslaughter with specific mens rea requirements. Such an interpretation would effectively eliminate these distinctions by allowing prosecutors to prove murder through the intent element of assault rather than the specific intent for murder or manslaughter. The court found that the Legislature did not intend for felonious assaults directly resulting in death to serve as the underlying felony for felony murder. Consequently, because the indictment failed to charge a valid offense, it was void, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The court explicitly noted that this merger doctrine does not apply when the perpetrator of a felonious assault causes the death of a person other than the assault victim.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the felony-murder rule in Alabama, preventing its application when the predicate felony is an assault that directly causes the victim's death. By adopting the merger doctrine, the court reinforces the distinct mens rea requirements for different degrees of homicide, ensuring that prosecutors cannot circumvent the need to prove malice aforethought in most murder cases by 'bootstrapping' a felonious assault into a felony-murder charge. This decision maintains the integrity of Alabama's statutory scheme for homicide and prevents an overbroad application of the felony-murder rule, thereby impacting future prosecutorial charging decisions and jury instructions.
