State v. Mauldin
1974 Kan. LEXIS 594, 529 P.2d 124, 215 Kan. 956 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant to be guilty of felony murder, the homicide must be committed in the perpetration of the underlying felony, requiring a direct causal relationship. A death resulting from a drug overdose, which occurs after the felony of selling the drug has been completed and is due to the purchaser's voluntary act of self-administration outside the seller's presence, does not satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- Robert Maudlin sold a quantity of heroin to Gary McCallon and Steve Cottrell.
- After the transaction, McCallon and Cottrell went to Cottrell's apartment.
- Maudlin was not present at the apartment with McCallon and Cottrell.
- At the apartment, McCallon prepared and voluntarily injected himself with the heroin he had purchased from Maudlin.
- McCallon subsequently died from a heroin overdose.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas charged Robert Maudlin by information with felony murder in a state trial court.
- Maudlin filed a motion to dismiss the charge.
- The trial court granted Maudlin's motion to dismiss the felony murder charge.
- The State of Kansas, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Kansas Supreme Court.
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 death from a self-administered heroin overdose, following the purchase of the drug, constitute a killing 'committed in the perpetration' of the felony of selling narcotics under the Kansas felony murder statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaul, J.
No. A death from a self-administered heroin overdose after the completion of a drug sale does not constitute a killing 'committed in the perpetration' of the felony of selling narcotics. The felony murder rule requires a 'direct causal relation between the commission of the felony and the homicide.' Here, the underlying felony was the sale of heroin, which was completed and terminated when the seller, Maudlin, and the purchaser, McCallon, parted company. The death was not a direct result of the felony itself, but rather the result of the purchaser's subsequent, voluntary act of injecting the drug outside the seller's presence. Unlike a continuing felony such as unlawful possession of a firearm, the sale of narcotics is a discrete event. To extend the felony murder rule to these facts would be an unwarranted judicial expansion of a penal statute, which must be strictly construed. If the rule is to be broadened, it is a task for the legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the felony murder doctrine in Kansas, especially concerning drug-induced homicides. By requiring a 'direct causal relation' and emphasizing the completion of the underlying felony, the court sets a high bar for prosecutors. It establishes that the felony must be temporally and causally proximate to the death, rejecting a broader 'but-for' causation standard. This precedent requires that the death occur during the commission or immediate flight from the felony, rather than as a later consequence of it, impacting how drug distribution-related deaths are charged and prosecuted in the future.
