State v. Thompson
558 P.2d 202, 88 Wash. 2d 13, 1977 Wash. LEXIS 732 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington law, the felony-murder rule applies even when the predicate felony is the assault that is inherent in the homicide itself. The assault does not merge with the resulting homicide and can form the basis for a second-degree murder conviction.
Facts:
- The defendant, Thompson, and her husband, Wayland D. Thompson, had a volatile relationship.
- On the day of the killing, Wayland Thompson consumed significant amounts of alcohol and drugs.
- While driving with his wife and two friends, Wayland Thompson drove recklessly, struck his wife on multiple occasions, and threatened to kill her.
- After arriving at their residence, the two friends went inside, leaving Thompson and her husband in the car.
- According to the defendant, her husband continued to threaten and strike her with his fists and a wine bottle.
- Shortly thereafter, Thompson shot and killed her husband with a pistol she carried in her purse.
- Thompson immediately called the sheriff to report that she had shot her husband.
- At trial, Thompson claimed she acted in self-defense.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Thompson by an amended information with second-degree felony murder, with the underlying felony being second-degree assault.
- Prior to trial, Thompson filed a written waiver of her right to a jury trial, which the trial court denied.
- The case was tried before a jury in the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Thompson guilty of murder in the second degree.
- Thompson appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Washington's felony-murder statute, does an assault that results in death merge with the homicide, thereby preventing the assault from serving as the underlying felony for a second-degree murder charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
No. An assault that results in death does not merge with the homicide and can serve as the underlying felony for a second-degree murder charge. This court's precedent, established in State v. Harris, explicitly rejected the merger doctrine for felony murder cases where the underlying felony is an assault inherent in the homicide. While the felony-murder statute may be harsh and relieves the prosecution from proving intent to kill, it is the law of the state. The legislature has not acted to change this rule in the nearly ten years since Harris, and no compelling reasons have been presented to overrule that precedent.
Dissenting - Utter, J.
Yes. An assault that is inherent in the homicide should merge with the killing and should not be used as the basis for a felony-murder conviction. Applying the felony-murder rule in this way violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution by eliminating the need for the state to prove the essential element of specific intent for murder. This 'bootstrapping' approach, which is rejected by the vast majority of other jurisdictions, gives prosecutors unconstitutional discretion to charge assault, manslaughter, or murder based on the same act, leading to unequal application of the law. The single act of shooting the victim is one indivisible crime, and it is illogical to split it into two to create a murder charge without proving intent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Washington's position as a significant outlier in American criminal law by rejecting the widely adopted 'merger doctrine.' It reaffirms the precedent set in State v. Harris, making it easier for prosecutors to secure a murder conviction without proving the defendant's intent to kill, so long as they can prove a felonious assault resulted in death. The ruling establishes that the act of assault and the resulting homicide are treated as legally distinct events for the purpose of the felony-murder rule. The dissent's strong constitutional arguments regarding due process and equal protection highlight the ongoing controversy and potential for future challenges to this unique and harsh application of the doctrine.
