State v. Mitchell
936 So. 2d 1094, 2006 WL 251174, 2006 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 20 (2006)
Rule of Law:
To determine whether an underlying felony is 'clearly dangerous to human life' for the purpose of a felony-murder charge under Alabama law, courts must apply a factual approach, considering the specific circumstances of the felony's commission rather than its abstract definition.
Facts:
- Oronde Kenyatt Mitchell was indicted for felony murder by a Montgomery County grand jury.
- The indictment named the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance as the predicate felony for the felony-murder charge.
- The indictment alleged that Mitchell, or another participant named Jaquin Deaudrey Jones, caused the death of Cedric Tolbert by shooting him with a pistol.
- Mitchell and Tolbert were in a vehicle attempting to sell marijuana to Jones.
- During the attempted drug transaction, Jones attempted to rob Mitchell and Tolbert with a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Oronde Kenyatt Mitchell was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury for felony murder, with the predicate felony being the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance.
- Mitchell filed a motion in the Montgomery Circuit Court (trial court) to dismiss the felony-murder charge, arguing that the underlying felony was not 'clearly dangerous to human life.'
- The Montgomery Circuit Court denied Mitchell's motion to dismiss the felony-murder charge.
- Mitchell filed a petition for a writ of prohibition/mandamus with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, seeking to compel the circuit court to dismiss the felony-murder charges.
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 unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, when viewed in the abstract, preclude it from serving as a predicate felony that is 'clearly dangerous to human life' for a felony-murder charge under Alabama law, or should this determination be made based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, the determination of whether an underlying felony is 'clearly dangerous to human life' for felony murder should not be made by viewing the felony in the abstract. Instead, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that a fact-based approach is required, where the trier of fact considers the specific facts and circumstances in which the felony was committed. The court treated Mitchell's petition for a writ of prohibition/mandamus as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the challenge to a void indictment is properly made through habeas corpus. Alabama's felony-murder statute includes 'any other felony clearly dangerous to human life' in addition to specifically enumerated felonies. Mitchell argued for an 'abstract approach' used by some other states (e.g., California, early Kansas), where the elements of the felony are examined without regard to the case's specific facts, concluding that unlawful distribution of a controlled substance is not inherently dangerous in the abstract. The State advocated for a case-by-case factual approach. Finding this to be an issue of first impression in Alabama, the court reviewed approaches from other jurisdictions. It explicitly declined to adopt the abstract approach, instead joining the majority of jurisdictions that apply a factual approach. Citing State v. Stewart from Rhode Island, the court reasoned that the 'better approach is for the trier of fact to consider the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine if such felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and the circumstances in which it was committed.' This approach is deemed more logical and consistent with the evolution of Alabama's felony-murder offense. Therefore, the indictment, which alleged a shooting death during an unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, was not void, as a jury could determine the felony was clearly dangerous based on the particular facts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Alabama's felony-murder statute, particularly concerning non-enumerated predicate felonies. By adopting a 'fact-based' approach, the court ensures that the specific, real-world context and manner of a felony's commission—rather than its abstract definition—dictate whether it qualifies as 'clearly dangerous to human life.' This broadens the potential applicability of felony murder, making it more challenging for defendants to dismiss such charges pretrial if the underlying events involved dangerous conduct, even if the predicate felony is not inherently dangerous in all instances. The decision emphasizes the role of the trier of fact in assessing the dangerousness, aligning Alabama with a majority of jurisdictions and providing a more flexible standard for prosecutorial discretion in cases where unexpected deaths occur during the commission of a felony.
