State v. Moore
213 P.3d 150, 2009 Ariz. LEXIS 244, 222 Ariz. 1 (2009)
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona's felony murder statute, a burglary charge predicated on the defendant's intent to murder the victim can serve as the underlying felony and does not merge with the resulting homicide.
Facts:
- In November 1999, Delia Ramos and Sergio Mata were selling crack cocaine from the Phoenix house they shared with Delia's brother, Guadalupe Ramos.
- On the evening of November 15, Julius Jarreau Moore was at the house smoking crack with others, including Debra Ford.
- Moore later went to his mother's house, told his girlfriend that he had seen a person who had tried to run him over and he was not going to stand for it, and took a 9mm pistol.
- In the early morning of November 16, Moore was seen hiding in bushes outside the house by Tony Brown. Moore flashed a gun and asked Brown for help to 'get' Mata.
- After Brown left, Moore confronted Mata outside the house, asking if he had a problem with him before shooting Mata and then shooting Ford.
- Moore then entered the house and shot Guadalupe as he slept and Delia as she hid in a closet, killing them both.
- After the shootings, Moore told his girlfriend he had just shot four people and later altered his appearance by cutting his braids.
- Police later arrested Moore, and a firearms examiner matched his gun to bullets found at the crime scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Julius Jarreau Moore was indicted in a state trial court on three counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of first-degree burglary.
- A jury convicted Moore on all counts.
- An initial sentencing hearing was vacated following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona.
- In 2004, a first sentencing jury was empanelled. It found the (F)(8) multiple-murders aggravator but deadlocked on another aggravator, leading the court to declare a mistrial before the penalty phase concluded.
- In 2007, a second sentencing jury was empanelled. The trial court instructed this jury that the (F)(8) aggravator had already been established.
- The second sentencing jury returned a verdict of death for the murders of Delia and Guadalupe Ramos and life imprisonment for the murder of Sergio Mata.
- Moore filed a mandatory direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
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 merger doctrine prevent a burglary conviction, based on the defendant's intent to murder the victims, from serving as the predicate felony for a first-degree felony murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Bales, Justice
No. The merger doctrine does not apply in cases where the separate crime of burglary is alleged and established, even if the intent underlying the burglary was to commit the murder itself. The court reasoned that Arizona’s felony murder statute, A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2), explicitly lists burglary as a predicate offense and does not distinguish between burglaries based on an intent to commit assault versus an intent to murder. The court distinguished prior precedent applying the merger doctrine to assault, relying on more recent cases which held that the predicate felony need not be entirely 'independent of the homicide.' It would be anomalous to conclude that a burglary with intent to assault resulting in death constitutes felony murder, but a burglary with the more culpable intent to murder does not. Therefore, Moore's felony murder convictions based on the predicate felony of burglary were upheld.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Arizona's rejection of the broad application of the merger doctrine in felony murder cases involving burglary as the predicate offense. The court clarifies that the felonious intent required for the burglary (e.g., intent to murder) can be the same as the act that causes the death, without the two crimes merging into one. This strengthens the felony murder rule, allowing prosecutors to secure first-degree murder convictions without proving premeditation for the homicide itself, so long as they can prove the defendant committed burglary with the intent to commit a felony therein. The ruling has significant implications for charging decisions in homicide cases arising from unlawful entries into structures.
