STATE of Idaho v. Fred W. HOKENSON

Supreme Court of Idaho
527 P.2d 487 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant is criminally liable for a death under the felony-murder rule if the killing and the underlying felony are parts of one continuous transaction, even if the death occurs after the defendant has been arrested, as long as the death is a natural and probable consequence of a dangerous instrumentality set in motion by the defendant.

Facts:

Fred W. Hokenson lured Kent Dean, a drugstore owner, back to his store on the premise of needing a prescription filled.
Upon Dean's return, Hokenson entered the store wearing a gas mask and carrying a homemade bomb and a knife, announcing an intent to commit robbery.
Dean tackled Hokenson, and during the struggle, Hokenson announced he had a bomb.
Dean pushed the sack containing the bomb away from them during the struggle.
Hokenson then threatened Dean with a knife, but Dean was able to wrestle it away from him.
Police arrived, and Officer Ross D. Flavel and another officer handcuffed Hokenson.
After Hokenson was secured, Officer Flavel approached and picked up the bomb.
The bomb then exploded, killing Officer Flavel and injuring others.

Procedural Posture:

Fred W. Hokenson was tried for first-degree murder in the Second Judicial District Court for Nez Perce County.
A jury found Hokenson guilty of murder in the first degree.
The trial court entered a judgment of conviction against Hokenson and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Hokenson (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

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 defendant's criminal liability for murder extend to a death that occurs after he has been arrested, when the death is caused by a bomb the defendant brought to the scene of the attempted robbery?

Opinions:

Majority - Donaldson, Justice

Yes, a defendant's criminal liability extends to a death that occurs after his arrest if it is part of one continuous transaction. The court reasoned that a person is criminally liable for the natural and probable consequences of their unlawful acts, including unlawful forces set in motion during the commission of the crime. Hokenson voluntarily brought a dangerous instrumentality, the bomb, to the robbery. The subsequent explosion and death were a direct consequence of this act. The court held that the killing and the felony were parts of 'one continuous transaction,' and the fact that Hokenson was under arrest at the moment of detonation does not sever his liability. Furthermore, the court found that even without the felony-murder presumption, Hokenson's act of carrying an active bomb into the store demonstrated 'recklessness under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,' which independently satisfied the statutory definition of murder.

Analysis:

This decision broadly interprets the 'one continuous transaction' doctrine within felony-murder jurisprudence, establishing that a defendant's arrest does not automatically terminate the felony for purposes of liability. It solidifies the principle that liability extends to the foreseeable consequences of dangerous instrumentalities the defendant introduces, even if the final harm is realized after the defendant is in custody. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to escape liability by arguing the underlying felony had concluded. The case also reinforces the significant discretion of trial courts to admit gruesome photographic evidence if it is probative of material issues like the defendant's state of mind (e.g., recklessness) or the atrociousness of the crime, even when the defendant offers to stipulate to the facts shown in the photos.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: STATE of Idaho v. Fred W. HOKENSON (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"