People v. Stewart
663 A.2d 912 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether a non-enumerated felony is 'inherently dangerous' for the purpose of the second-degree felony murder rule is determined not by viewing the felony's elements in the abstract, but by the trier of fact considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case to decide if the felony was dangerous in the manner it was committed.
Facts:
- Tracy Stewart gave birth to a son, Travis Young, on August 31, 1988.
- During the week before Travis's death, Stewart, the baby's father Edward Young, and a friend, Patricia McMasters, engaged in a continuous two- to three-day cocaine binge in the apartment where the infant lived.
- Stewart and McMasters used their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks to purchase the cocaine.
- During the binge, McMasters observed Stewart feed the 52-day-old infant only once, by propping a bottle on a blanket in his walker, and did not see her hold him or change his diaper.
- Stewart knew from past experience that she was incapable of caring for her children while on cocaine binges and would normally have her mother care for them, but Travis remained with her during this period.
- On October 21, 1988, Travis died from dehydration.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracy Stewart was indicted in Superior Court on charges of second-degree murder, wrongfully permitting a child to be a habitual sufferer, and manslaughter.
- Prior to trial, Stewart filed a motion to dismiss the second-degree murder count, arguing the underlying felony was not inherently dangerous.
- The trial justice denied the motion to dismiss.
- At the close of the state's case and again at the close of all evidence, Stewart moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial justice denied.
- A jury found Stewart guilty of second-degree murder and the underlying felony of wrongfully permitting a child to be a habitual sufferer.
- The trial court denied Stewart's subsequent motion for a new trial.
- Stewart appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the determination of whether a non-enumerated felony is 'inherently dangerous' for purposes of second-degree felony murder made by viewing the felony's elements in the abstract, rather than by examining the facts and circumstances of its commission?
Opinions:
Majority - Weisberger, Chief Justice
No. The determination of whether a felony is inherently dangerous for the purpose of the second-degree felony murder rule is not made in the abstract; rather, the trier of fact must consider the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine if the felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and circumstances in which it was committed. The court explicitly rejected the 'California approach,' which analyzes a felony's elements in the abstract, because some felonies, like escape, may not seem dangerous on their face but can be committed in a manner that endangers human life. Adopting the majority view, the court held that it is the jury's role to assess the dangerousness of the underlying felony based on the specific evidence presented. Furthermore, the court found sufficient evidence that Stewart possessed the necessary intent for the underlying felony. Although she may not have intentionally deprived her son of food, her repeated, voluntary cocaine use with the knowledge that it rendered her incapable of caring for her infant was sufficient to find she intentionally 'permitted' her son to be a habitual sufferer, and this intent is imputed to the resulting homicide.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'facts and circumstances' or 'as committed' test in Rhode Island for determining whether a felony can serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder. By rejecting the minority 'in the abstract' approach, the court gives prosecutors greater latitude and empowers juries to make case-specific determinations of dangerousness. This precedent makes it easier to secure felony-murder convictions for deaths that result from crimes not explicitly listed in the murder statute, such as child neglect, by focusing on the defendant's actual conduct rather than a theoretical analysis of the crime's elements. The ruling significantly impacts cases where the underlying felony's dangerousness is not self-evident but arises from the specific way it was perpetrated.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Stewart