Weick v. State
420 A.2d 159 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Delaware's felony murder statute, a defendant is not liable for the death of a co-felon killed by the intended victim of the felony, as the killing must be "in furtherance of" the underlying crime. Additionally, a valid conspiracy conviction requires the state to allege and prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement.
Facts:
- Frank Weick, Jeffery Melvin Messick, Jerry Connelly, Gary Connelly, and Eugene Edgar Weick agreed to forcibly seize a quantity of marijuana from Robert and Kathy Fitzgerald.
- To carry out their plan, Frank Weick, Eugene Weick, and Messick armed themselves with loaded sawed-off shotguns.
- The five men proceeded to the Fitzgerald residence; the Connelly brothers waited in the getaway car.
- Messick, concealing his shotgun, gained entry to the home and then forced Robert Fitzgerald into a back room at gunpoint.
- Simultaneously, Frank Weick aimed his shotgun at Robert Fitzgerald through a window from outside the house.
- Kathy Fitzgerald observed the events, retrieved a rifle from a bedroom, and saw Eugene Weick breaking through the kitchen door.
- Kathy Fitzgerald fired her rifle at Eugene Weick, striking him in the face.
- The surviving co-felons fled with the injured Eugene Weick, who subsequently died from his wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Weick, Jeffery Melvin Messick, Jerry Connelly, and Gary Connelly were charged in the Superior Court of Sussex County, Delaware's trial court.
- Following a non-jury trial on stipulated facts, the defendants were found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.
- Each defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and three years of probation on the conspiracy conviction.
- The defendants (as appellants) appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Delaware, 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:
First, does Delaware's felony murder statute, which requires a death to be caused 'in the course of and in furtherance of' a felony, apply when a co-felon is killed by the intended victim? Second, is a conspiracy charge fatally defective if it fails to allege an overt act in furtherance of the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Herrmann, Chief Justice
No, the felony murder statute does not apply to the defendants, and yes, the conspiracy charge is fatally defective. First, a defendant cannot be convicted of felony murder under § 635(2) when a co-felon is killed by the intended victim. The statute requires that the death be caused 'in the course of and in furtherance of' the felony. A killing by a victim attempting to thwart a felony cannot be considered 'in furtherance' of it; on the contrary, it is an act to prevent the felony. The court adopted the majority agency theory of felony murder, which limits liability to killings committed by a felon or an accomplice, reasoning that the purpose of the rule is to impute malice for acts done to advance the criminal design, not for acts of resistance by a victim. Second, the conspiracy convictions must be reversed because the information failed to allege an overt act. Although the codified version of the conspiracy statute, § 512, is ambiguous, the court found the legislative intent was clear. By examining the original bill passed by the General Assembly and the official commentary from the drafters, the court concluded that the 'overt act' requirement applies to both subsections of the statute, not just subsection (2). The failure to allege an overt act was therefore a fatal defect in the charging document.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns Delaware with the majority of jurisdictions by adopting the 'agency theory' of felony murder, thereby narrowing the scope of the doctrine. It explicitly rejects the broader 'proximate cause' theory, which would hold felons liable for any foreseeable death resulting from the felony, including killings by victims or police. This provides a clearer, more restrictive standard for felony murder liability. The court's handling of the conspiracy charge is a significant example of statutory interpretation, demonstrating a willingness to look beyond the plain text of a codified statute to correct a legislative misprint and enforce the original, manifest intent of the legislature.
Unlock the full brief for Weick v. State