State v. Sturdivant
37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 127, 2012 WL 572977, 94 So.3d 434 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The merger doctrine does not preclude a first-degree felony-murder conviction when it is predicated on a single act of an underlying felony, such as aggravated child abuse, that is specifically enumerated in the felony-murder statute.
Facts:
- Robert Nathan Sturdivant was with a two-year-old victim.
- The child was standing on a coffee table.
- Sturdivant slapped the child on the back of the head with such force that the child fell.
- As a result of the fall, the child hit his head on a concrete wall.
- The child died from the injury.
- The medical examiner testified that the force of the slap to the back of the victim’s head would have been sufficient to cause death.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Nathan Sturdivant was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse.
- The State also filed an information charging Sturdivant with second-degree murder.
- In a Florida trial court, a jury found Sturdivant guilty of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and aggravated child abuse.
- The trial court adjudicated Sturdivant guilty and sentenced him for first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse.
- Sturdivant, as appellant, appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The First District Court of Appeal, feeling bound by precedent in Brooks v. State, reversed Sturdivant's convictions.
- The First District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest 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 the merger doctrine preclude a felony-murder conviction under section 782.04(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2007), that is predicated upon a single act of aggravated child abuse that caused the child’s death?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
No. The merger doctrine does not preclude a felony-murder conviction predicated upon a single act of aggravated child abuse that caused the child’s death. The merger doctrine is a rule of statutory construction designed to effectuate legislative intent, not a constitutional principle. Its historical purpose was to prevent every assault leading to death from automatically becoming felony murder under statutes that broadly define felony murder as a killing during 'any' felony. However, Florida's statute is different because it specifically enumerates the felonies that can serve as a predicate for a felony-murder conviction, and aggravated child abuse is on that list. When the legislature explicitly designates a felony as a basis for felony murder, the court must infer the intent to allow a conviction, and the merger doctrine does not apply. The court's prior decision in Brooks v. State, which held otherwise, was an error in legal analysis because it improperly relied on Mills v. State, a case involving aggravated battery, which is not an enumerated felony. Therefore, the court recedes from Brooks and holds that the plain language of the statute permits a felony-murder conviction based on a single, fatal act of aggravated child abuse.
Dissenting - Quince, J.
Yes. The merger doctrine should preclude the felony-murder conviction in this case. The single act of aggravated child abuse is a necessary element of the felony murder, making it a necessarily lesser-included offense. A defendant should not be convicted of both a greater offense and its lesser-included component stemming from the same act, just as a defendant cannot be convicted of both second-degree murder and manslaughter for the same killing.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens Florida's felony-murder rule by eliminating a judicially created exception for single-act offenses involving enumerated felonies. By receding from its precedent in Brooks, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the principle of legislative supremacy, holding that when a statute's text is clear, courts should not use doctrines like merger to create distinctions the legislature did not intend. The ruling provides prosecutors with a more direct path to securing first-degree murder convictions in fatal child abuse cases, regardless of whether the death resulted from a prolonged pattern of abuse or a single, fatal act. This case reinforces the distinction between enumerated and non-enumerated felonies, narrowing the application of the merger doctrine to only those situations where the legislature has not explicitly sanctioned the felony as a predicate for murder.
