State v. Oimen
516 N.W.2d 399, 184 Wis. 2d 423 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Wisconsin's felony murder statute, a defendant's felonious conduct need only be a "substantial factor" in causing a death during the commission of an enumerated felony; liability attaches even if the person killed is a co-felon and the fatal act is committed by the intended victim of the underlying felony.
Facts:
- James Oimen, Shawn Murphy McGinnis, and David Hall planned to rob Tom Stoker, a bookie.
- Oimen, who knew Stoker, provided a diagram of Stoker's house, information on where money was kept, and falsely assured his co-conspirators that Stoker was 'meek and mild' and unarmed.
- Oimen planned to act as the getaway driver while McGinnis and Hall entered the house.
- On January 2, 1989, McGinnis and Hall, armed with a realistic-looking BB gun and a pool cue butt, went to Stoker's home while Oimen waited in a pickup truck.
- McGinnis cut Stoker's telephone lines, which made Stoker suspicious, prompting him to retrieve his hunting rifle.
- When McGinnis and Hall confronted Stoker at his kitchen door, Stoker retreated to load his rifle. McGinnis and Hall then broke down the door and entered the house.
- Inside, McGinnis pointed his weapon at Stoker. Upon seeing Stoker's rifle, McGinnis and Hall turned to flee.
- Stoker followed them to the kitchen and, believing McGinnis was turning back to shoot at him from the porch, fired his rifle, killing McGinnis.
- Upon hearing the gunshot, Oimen drove away, abandoning his co-conspirators.
Procedural Posture:
- James Oimen was arrested and charged in the Dane County Circuit Court with attempted armed robbery, felony murder, and armed burglary, all as a party to the crime.
- Oimen filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the felony murder charge, arguing the statute does not apply when a co-felon is killed by the victim.
- The circuit court (trial court) denied Oimen's motion.
- Following a trial, a jury found Oimen guilty on all counts.
- Oimen's post-conviction motion for relief was denied by the trial court.
- Oimen, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted review of the court of appeals' decision on two limited issues.
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 Wisconsin's felony murder statute, sec. 940.03, apply to a defendant whose co-felon is killed by the intended victim of the underlying felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, C.J.
Yes. Wisconsin's felony murder statute, sec. 940.03, applies to a defendant whose co-felon is killed by the intended victim of the underlying felony. The statute's plain language requires only two elements: (1) that the defendant caused a death, and (2) that the death was caused while committing or attempting to commit one of the five listed felonies. The court defines causation under the 'substantial factor' test, meaning the defendant's acts must be a substantial factor in producing the death, but not necessarily the sole or direct cause. The statute places no limitations on the identity of the person killed or the person who commits the fatal act. Oimen's role as the planner who set the events in motion was a substantial factor in McGinnis's death. The legislative history supports this 'proximate cause' approach, showing the legislature deliberately chose to limit liability by enumerating inherently dangerous felonies rather than adopting the 'agency' theory followed by many other states, which would require the killer to be an agent of the felons.
Analysis:
This decision establishes Wisconsin's adherence to the 'proximate cause' theory of felony murder, rejecting the more common 'agency' theory. This significantly broadens the scope of liability for felons, making them responsible for any death that is a foreseeable result of their dangerous criminal enterprise, regardless of who pulls the trigger. The ruling confirms that the key inquiry is causation—whether the defendant's actions were a 'substantial factor' in the death—not the identity of the deceased or the killer. This precedent places a heavy burden on anyone participating in an enumerated felony, holding them strictly liable for even the unintended deaths of their own accomplices.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Oimen