Dissecting The Felony Murder Rule and The Mentally Ill Defendant
Nadine
Mathieu
I. Introduction
Imagine being told that if you did not
participate in a felony, you or one of your family members would be
killed. Should you participate in the felony due to the threat of being
harmed? In the following scenario, imagine being intimidated and
threatened into being the getaway driver for a group of individuals involved in
an armed bank robbery. One of those individuals then shot and killed a
security guard during the commission of the robbery. Even though the
getaway driver was coerced into participating in the robbery and did not know
or have the intention to cause a death, the driver would also be held liable
for the murder of the security guard under the felony murder rule. Under
the felony murder rule, anyone who commits a homicide during the commission or
attempted commission of a felony would be found guilty of murder regardless of
whether the person was coerced into participating in the felony.[i] This doctrine is not only limited to those
deaths that are foreseeable.[ii] The felony
murder doctrine also applies to unforeseeable and unexpected deaths because the
felon is held strictly liable for all killings committed during the course of
the felony.[iii]
Due to the fact that anyone, regardless of whether the person was the primary
actor or just an accomplice, can be found guilty of murder if a homicide is
committed during a felony, the felony murder rule is often heavily criticized.[iv] What if the defendant was mentally ill at
the time the felony was committed and could not distinguish between right and
wrong? This article will analyze the felony murder doctrine in Florida
and how it effects mentally ill defendants and defendants who plea affirmative
defenses such as insanity and duress.
II. Defining
the Felony Murder Doctrine
Under common law, the felony murder doctrine establishes that anyone who
commits a homicide during the commission or attempted commission of a felony
would be found guilty of murder.[v] The
felony murder rule is one of the most controversial doctrines in the United
States justice system because a felony murder conviction does not carry the
same mens rea requirement as a murder conviction.[vi] For a murder conviction, the prosecution
must prove that the defendant carried the necessary mens rea, or
actual intent, to kill another human being and that the killing was
premeditated, deliberate, or was caused by gross negligence.[vii] However,
for a felony murder conviction, the prosecution does not need to prove that the
defendant had the actual intent to kill another human being.[viii] The
prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant carried the necessary mens
rea to commit the felony and that the criminal act caused the death of
another.[ix] Therefore, the defendant will be
found guilty of felony murder regardless of whether he or she had the actual
intent to kill another human being.[x]
III. The
Felony Murder Rule’s Effect on Juvenile Defendants—A Comparison
Considering the fact that one of the main concerns of the felony murder rule
and why the doctrine is so controversial is because the required element of
proving criminal intent is not necessary,[xi] it
is particularly clear that this doctrine should not be applied to juvenile
defendants. Instead, juveniles should be charged for their crimes within
the juvenile justice system. Based on the infancy defense, it is presumed
that juveniles between the ages of seven and fourteen are unable to form the
necessary criminal intent required for criminal culpability.[xii] “The
common law infancy defense can be stated as ‘children under the age of seven
are conclusively presumed to be without criminal capacity, [while] those who
have reached the age of fourteen are treated as fully responsible, . . . those
between the ages of seven and fourteen [are given] a rebuttable presumption of
criminal incapacity.’”[xiii] This defense
demonstrates the law’s “unwillingness to punish those thought to be incapable
of forming criminal intent.”[xiv]
Additionally, the felony murder rule should not be applied to juvenile
defendants because longstanding developmental and psychological research has
proven that juveniles under the age of fourteen lack the cognitive capacity
necessary to complete these crimes,[xv] which is
similar to mentally ill defendants who lack the cognitive capacity to commit
some of their crimes. Proven research studies have established that children
under the age of fifteen are more susceptible to coercion and influence such as
peer pressure, are more impulsive, and are less equipped to realizing the
future consequences of their actions than adults.[xvi] Research
also shows that juveniles react differently and go through different
decision-making processes than adults.[xvii] The
inability to control certain impulses and the psychological disadvantages
compared to that of an adult, makes the felony murder rule particularly unfair
to apply to juveniles—especially when it comes to unintentional crimes.
IV. Conclusion
Aside from the fact that England fundamentally created the felony murder rule
and then later renounced it, the doctrine still thrives throughout the United
States today with only a few states abolishing the rule.[xviii] A
petition on Change.org was created in 2014 to eliminate the felony murder rule
in Florida and gained 1,599 supporters.[xix]
Although a defendant should be held liable for his or her actions and for his
or her participation in the underlying felony, holding a defendant liable for
murder due to unintended or accidental results goes against the core values of
the United States justice system.[xx] In
situations where the death was purely accidental or participation in the
underlying felony was coerced, applying the felony murder rule is unjust.
In regards to defendants with mental illnesses, applying the felony murder rule
seems particularly unjust because in most cases, the defendant is incapable of
controlling his or her actions and cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
[i].
J. Rafael Rodriguez, Column, Criminal Law: Attempted Felony Murder — An
Improbable Legal Fiction Meets Its Demise, 69 Fla. B.J. 63, 63
(1995).
[v]. Joshua
Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law 521 (5th ed. 2009); see also Jennifer
DeCook Hatchett, Comment, Kansas Felony Murder: Agency or
Proximate Cause?, 48 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1047, 1047 (2000).
[vi].
Douglas Van Zanten, Note, Felony Murder, the Merger Limitation, and
Legislative Intent in State v. Heemstra: Deciphering the
Proper Role of the Iowa Supreme Court in Interpreting Iowa’s Felony-Murder
Statute, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 1565, 1567 (2008).
[x]. Id.; see
also People v. Stamp, 82 Cal. Rptr. 598, 603 (Ct. App. 1969) (stating
that a felon is held strictly liable for any and all killings committed by the
individual or by an accomplice during the course of the felony).
[xii].
Steven A. Drizin & Allison McGowen Keegan, The Aftermath of the
Lionel Tate Case: Abolishing the Use of the Felony-Murder Rule When the
Defendant Is a Teenager, 28 Nova L. Rev. 507, 529 (2004).
[xv]. Id. at
508. “This research reveals that many pre-adolescents and adolescents are
not competent to stand trial, [are] incapable of understanding the legal
proceedings against them, and [are] unable to meaningfully assist in their own
defense.” Id. (footnote omitted).
[xvi]. Id.; see
also Christie Thompson, Charged with Murder Without Killing
Anyone: The Paradox of “Felony Murder” Laws, The Marshall
Project, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/24/a-person-can-be-charged-with-murder-even-if-they-haven-t-killed-anyone#.qyot4Iv52
(last visited Mar. 18, 2017) (“Felony murder laws are especially controversial
when it comes to children because, lawyers and advocates claim, they can be
easily manipulated into playing a role in an older offender’s crime.”).
[xvii].
Drizin & Keegan, supra note 12, at 508. “[E]merging
research from the field of neuroscience, using MRIs and other technologies
which scan the brain, suggests that differences in the organic structure and
function of the teenage brain extend these disabilities in impulse control and
decision-making into the late teens and early twenties.” Id. at
509.
[xviii].
Van Zanten, supra note 6, at 1572; see also People
v. Aaron, 299 N.W.2d 304, 312 (Mich. 1980) (citing that the felony murder rule
has been constantly revised and restricted in England, the country of
its birth, until it was finally abolished in 1957 by Parliament).
[xix].
Melissa Higgins, Eliminate Florida’s Felony Murder Rule, Change.org, https://www.change.org/p/eliminate-florida-s-felony-murder-rule,
(last visited Mar. 18, 2017).
