State v. Burkhart
103 P.3d 1037, 2004 MT 372, 325 Mont. 27 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Montana's felony-murder statute, the intent to commit the underlying forcible felony, such as assault with a weapon, is sufficient to satisfy the mental state requirement for deliberate homicide. The felony-murder rule applies even when the predicate felony is the assault that is integral to and results in the victim's death, and this application does not violate due process.
Facts:
- After discovering someone had attempted to break into his car, Richard Earl Burkhart became extremely angry, exclaiming to his friend Michael Staley, “I am going to kill the fucker that broke into [my] car.”
- Burkhart and Staley encountered William Ledeau in an alley and accused him of the break-in.
- When Ledeau denied involvement and took offense, Burkhart struck him in the head with a ball-peen hammer.
- Ledeau attempted to flee, but Burkhart chased him down and struck him three more times in the head with the hammer.
- Ledeau died as a result of blunt-force trauma to the head.
- Burkhart and Staley initially lied to police, claiming they had confronted a man who became aggressive, and they walked away.
- Staley later admitted to witnessing Burkhart assault Ledeau and told Burkhart to get rid of the hammer.
- Police recovered the ball-peen hammer near the scene, and the State Medical Examiner testified that its shape precisely matched the fractures in Ledeau's skull.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana initially charged Burkhart with deliberate homicide by accountability in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County (a state trial court).
- The State later amended the information to add a charge of deliberate homicide, felony-murder.
- During jury selection (voir dire), the trial court granted the State's motion to remove a prospective juror for cause.
- A jury found Burkhart guilty of deliberate homicide, felony-murder.
- The District Court sentenced Burkhart to life imprisonment.
- Burkhart appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Montana.
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 applying Montana's felony-murder rule, where the predicate felony is the assault that causes the victim's death, violate a defendant's due process rights by eliminating the State's burden to prove a specific mental state for the homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Regnier
No, applying Montana's felony-murder rule in this manner does not violate the defendant's due process rights. The legislature specifically included 'assault with a weapon' as a predicate forcible felony, and the statute's plain language does not require the underlying felony to be independent of the homicide. The purpose of the rule is to hold individuals responsible for deaths that occur during dangerous felonious acts. Under this rule, the intent to commit the felony supplies the requisite intent for the homicide, meaning the State is not unconstitutionally relieved of its burden of proof but rather may substitute proof of the mental state for the underlying felony for the mental state of the homicide.
Dissenting - Justice Leaphart
Yes, applying the felony-murder rule in this manner violates the Due Process Clause. Without a 'merger doctrine,' which would prevent an assault integral to the homicide from serving as the predicate felony, any assault that results in death can be bootstrapped into a murder charge. This effectively eliminates the state's burden to prove the essential 'mens rea' (mental state) for murder, which is a core principle of criminal law. Alternatively, if the rule is viewed as creating a conclusive presumption that the intent to assault equals the intent to kill, it is unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana.
Concurring - Justice Cotter
No, the felony-murder rule does not violate due process as applied in this specific case. While the dissent's constitutional concerns about the rule are valid in principle, the facts here do not present such a problem. The sheer ferocity of Burkhart's assault on Ledeau was sufficient to establish a murderous intent. Therefore, in this instance, there is no need to rely on a legal presumption of intent because the defendant's actions themselves demonstrated it.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the broad scope of Montana's felony-murder rule and explicitly rejects the 'merger doctrine' followed by other jurisdictions. By allowing an assault that is integral to a homicide to serve as the predicate felony, the court affirms a powerful tool for prosecutors, relieving them of the burden of proving a specific intent to kill in fatal assault cases. The decision reinforces the legal fiction that the mental state for the underlying felony can be directly transferred to the act of killing, a position the dissent argues is a constitutionally impermissible shortcut that violates due process.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Burkhart