State v. Small
100 So. 3d 797 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Louisiana, a conviction for second degree felony murder requires that the defendant or an accomplice perform a "direct act of killing"; a criminally negligent omission, such as the failure to supervise a child, does not satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- On January 20, 2008, at approximately 10 p.m., Satonia Small left her two children, six-year-old S.S. and seven-year-old J.D., asleep and unsupervised in their second-story apartment.
- Small went to the home of a friend, Patrina Gay, to drink alcohol.
- While Small was away, a fire originated on the kitchen stove in her apartment after a pan melted to a burner.
- Small's son, J.D., escaped the fire by jumping from a second-story window.
- Firefighters found S.S. unconscious inside the apartment; she was transported to the hospital.
- Several days later, S.S. died from anoxic encephalopathy with pneumonia and complicating smoke and soot inhalation.
- Prior to this incident, Small had pleaded guilty to criminal abandonment for leaving her children unattended in 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- The grand jury indicted Satonia Small for second degree murder.
- At a jury trial in the state trial court, Small was found guilty of second degree murder.
- The trial court denied Small's post-verdict motion for acquittal or conviction of a lesser offense.
- The trial court sentenced Small to the mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole.
- Small (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, which affirmed the conviction and sentence against her.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Small's (applicant's) writ application to review the appellate court's decision.
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 parent's criminally negligent act of leaving her young children unsupervised, which results in the death of one child in an accidental house fire, constitute a "direct act of killing" sufficient to support a conviction for second degree felony murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Victory, J.
No. A conviction for second degree murder cannot be supported where the defendant’s criminally negligent act of leaving her children alone was not a 'direct act' of killing, but was instead a criminally negligent lack of supervision that resulted in her child’s death. Louisiana jurisprudence, under the 'agency test,' requires that for a felony murder conviction, the defendant or an accomplice must perform the direct act of killing. The court has consistently rejected the 'proximate cause' test, which would hold a defendant responsible for any foreseeable death resulting from the felony. Small's conduct was a negative act—an omission—not a direct physical act that killed her daughter. While cruelty to juveniles is an enumerated felony, extending the felony murder rule to deaths resulting from a lack of supervision would contradict the legislative classification of murder as a 'crime of violence' and violate the rule of lenity. Although the evidence is insufficient for second degree murder, it is sufficient to prove Small's criminal negligence was a substantial factor in her daughter's death, warranting a conviction for the lesser offense of negligent homicide.
Dissenting - Guidry, J.
Yes. The defendant's conduct is sufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder. The 'agency test' is inapplicable here as it was developed for cases involving a third party who commits the killing, which did not occur in this case. The proper causation analysis is whether the defendant’s conduct was a 'substantial factor' in bringing about the victim's death. It was reasonably foreseeable that leaving young children unattended created a substantial risk of death by accidental fire. When the legislature added cruelty to juveniles—a crime that can be committed by neglect—to the felony murder statute, it intended for such conduct to serve as a predicate felony, even if it is an act of omission.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Louisiana's strict adherence to the 'agency test' for felony murder causation, clarifying that an omission, like parental neglect, does not satisfy the 'direct act of killing' requirement. The court distinguishes the causation standard for murder from that of lesser crimes like negligent homicide, where the 'substantial factor' test applies. This ruling significantly limits the scope of the felony murder doctrine in cases of passive neglect, preventing its application to tragic accidents that occur as an indirect result of a defendant's failure to act, thereby creating a clear line between direct, violent acts and criminally negligent omissions.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Small