State v. Anderson
654 N.W.2d 367, 666 N.W.2d 696 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota's felony murder rule, a status offense such as being a felon in possession of a firearm can serve as a predicate felony if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission of that offense created a special danger to human life.
Facts:
- Jerrett Lee Anderson had a prior felony conviction for riot in the second degree, which legally prohibited him from possessing a firearm.
- On February 26, 2002, Anderson brought a loaded, stockless, 12-gauge shotgun to the home of Blake Rogers.
- Anderson informed Rogers and a third person present that he had stolen the gun.
- Anderson passed the gun to the other two individuals, who observed that it was loaded before returning it to him.
- While Blake Rogers was kneeling to load compact discs into his stereo, Anderson pointed the shotgun at Rogers's head from a few feet away.
- The shotgun discharged, killing Blake Rogers.
- Immediately after the shooting, Anderson and the third party fled from the house.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Jerrett Lee Anderson in district court with unintentional murder in the second degree (felony murder) and murder in the third degree (depraved-mind murder).
- The district court, acting as the trial court, dismissed the second-degree felony murder charge on the grounds that felon in possession and possession of a stolen firearm are not proper predicate offenses.
- The district court found probable cause existed for the murder in the third degree charge to proceed to trial.
- The State of Minnesota, as appellant, appealed the pre-trial dismissal of the felony murder charge to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Jerrett Lee Anderson is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can the status offenses of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a stolen firearm serve as predicate offenses for a second-degree felony murder charge under Minnesota law?
Opinions:
Majority - G. Barry Anderson
Yes. The status offenses of felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a stolen firearm can serve as predicate offenses for a second-degree felony murder charge. Minnesota applies a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine if a predicate felony involves a special danger to human life, which requires examining the specific facts of how the felony was committed, not just the elements of the offense in the abstract. The district court erred by failing to consider the inherently dangerous manner in which Anderson committed the possession offenses. While possession itself may be a passive crime, Anderson's conduct during his ongoing illegal possession—specifically, pointing a loaded, stockless shotgun at the victim's head from close range—created a substantial and foreseeable risk to human life sufficient to support the felony murder charge.
Dissenting - Hudson
No. The status offenses of felon in possession and possession of a stolen firearm should not serve as predicate offenses to felony murder. The majority's holding is a dangerous and unwarranted extension of the felony-murder doctrine, which is already a harsh and disfavored legal concept. The majority improperly conflates the passive, 'malum prohibitum' status offense of possession with the separate, reckless act of pointing the gun. Furthermore, for the felony-murder rule to apply, the act causing death must be in furtherance of the predicate felony, and here, the discharge of the gun did not further Anderson's crime of possessing it. The more appropriate charge, which the district court upheld, is third-degree depraved-mind murder, as it accurately reflects Anderson's conduct without distorting established felony-murder jurisprudence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that under Minnesota's 'totality of the circumstances' approach, the focus for felony murder is on the dangerousness of the defendant's conduct, not the abstract nature of the underlying felony. By allowing a passive status offense to serve as a predicate, the court significantly broadens the potential application of the felony murder rule. The ruling suggests that almost any felony can trigger the rule if the defendant's actions while committing it are sufficiently reckless and life-threatening, blurring the line between the predicate offense and the act causing death, as noted by the dissent. This will likely lead to prosecutors using the felony murder charge more expansively in cases where a death occurs during the commission of a non-violent felony.
