State v. Goodseal
220 Kan. 487, 1976 Kan. LEXIS 496, 553 P.2d 279 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is an inherently dangerous felony that can serve as the predicate felony for a first-degree murder conviction. In determining whether a felony is inherently dangerous, courts may consider both the nature of the felony in the abstract and the specific circumstances of its commission.
Facts:
- Charles Goodseal, having been released from prison for forcible rape within the last five years, traveled to Wichita.
- Goodseal and a friend, Carl Davis, met a woman named 'Silky' who worked as a dancer at the Goldigger's Lounge.
- Goodseal agreed to help Silky stage a confrontation with a man, James Warren Hunter, in the lounge's parking lot by pretending to be her husband.
- Silky gave Goodseal a .38 caliber revolver for the confrontation.
- Goodseal approached Hunter's car, where Hunter and Silky were in the back seat, and tapped on the window with the gun.
- After Silky exited the car, Goodseal confronted Hunter about being with his 'wife.'
- During the confrontation, the gun discharged, and the bullet struck and killed Hunter.
- Goodseal claimed he slipped in the snow, causing the gun to discharge accidentally, and that he only intended to use the gun to scare Hunter.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Goodseal was charged in a Kansas trial court with unlawful possession of a firearm, aggravated robbery, and felony murder.
- At his first trial, the jury convicted Goodseal of unlawful possession of a firearm, acquitted him of aggravated robbery, and was unable to reach a verdict on the felony murder charge.
- Goodseal was retried in the same trial court solely on the charge of murder in the first degree, with the underlying felony being unlawful possession of a firearm.
- In the second trial, the jury convicted Goodseal of first-degree murder.
- Goodseal appealed his murder conviction to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
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 the felony of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon qualify as an inherently dangerous felony that can serve as the basis for a first-degree felony murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Harman, C.
Yes. Unlawful possession of a firearm by an ex-felon can be a sufficient basis for application of the felony murder rule. The court reaffirms the principle that a felony must be inherently dangerous to support a felony-murder conviction. However, it declines to follow the California case, People v. Satchell, which views the felony only in the abstract. Instead, the court holds that to determine if a felony is inherently dangerous, one can look at both the nature of the felony itself and the specific circumstances of its commission. In this case, Goodseal's own admission that he used the gun to scare the victim demonstrated a dangerous manner of commission, making the felony possession inherently dangerous and sufficient to support the murder conviction.
Dissenting - Prager, J.
No. The mere unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not the type of felony which should permit the application of the felony-murder rule to a killing which is accidental or nonmalicious. The dissent argues the court should follow the California Satchell decision, which holds that mere passive possession of a firearm is not inherently dangerous when viewed in the abstract. The majority's rule, which considers the circumstances of the commission, is unworkable for trial courts and risks conflicting with the principle that the underlying felony cannot be an integral part of the homicide itself. This approach could lead to absurd results, such as turning any accidental discharge by a prohibited person into first-degree murder.
Concurring - Kaul, J.
Yes. The court's prior decision in State v. Moffitt correctly established that possession of a pistol by a felon is a felony inherently dangerous to human life. The concurrence emphasizes the precedent set in Moffitt, which has been the law in Kansas since 1967. Given the dramatic increase in firearm homicides committed by felons and the legislature's inaction to change the rule, the court would be making a grave mistake to modify or reverse its established position.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Kansas's broad application of the felony-murder rule by rejecting the more restrictive 'in the abstract' test used in other jurisdictions like California. By allowing courts to examine the specific circumstances of the felony's commission to determine if it is 'inherently dangerous,' the ruling expands the range of felonies that can serve as a predicate for murder. This creates a flexible but potentially less predictable standard, increasing the risk for defendants who commit felonies that are not dangerous on their face but are carried out in a risky manner.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Goodseal