Lewis v. State Of Fla.

Decision Date06 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 1D08-1419.,1D08-1419.
Citation34 So.3d 183
PartiesAmanda E. LEWIS, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Phil S. Patterson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General; Charmaine Millsaps and Natalie D. Kirk, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROBERTS, J.

The appellant, Amanda Lewis, was charged and convicted of aggravated child abuse and first-degree felony murder in the drowning death of her seven-year-old daughter. She raises four issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. She argues that her convictions must be set aside because the merger doctrine precludes the use of aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge if only a single act of abuse led to the child's death. We disagree and affirm.

At English common law, the crime of felony murder occurred when a person caused the death of another in the commission of any felony without regard to the dangerousness of the underlying felony. Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 14.5 (2d ed. 2003). The felony murder rule effectively relieves the prosecution of the need to prove the requisite mens rea to obtain a first-degree murder conviction. As the number of felonies increased to include those that were malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, it became necessary to limit the scope of the felony murder rule to avoid the harshness of convicting a defendant of murders which flowed from felonies such as filing a false tax return or embezzling. Id.

One such limitation on the scope of the felony murder rule is the merger doctrine. The leading case explaining the application of the merger doctrine to the felony murder rule is People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580 (1969). In Ireland, a felony murder instruction was given where a man shot and killed his wife-the underlying felony being assault with a deadly weapon. Id. at 589. The court held that a “felony-murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charged.” Id. at 590.

The rationale behind the merger doctrine is to ensure that varying degrees of murder, manslaughter, and other homicides remain distinct categories. Douglas Van Zanten 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, 1574 (2008) (citing State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97, 415 P.2d 766, 767 (1966)). Without the merger doctrine, all felonious assaults that resulted in death would be bootstrapped up to first-degree murder regardless of whether the requisite mens rea existed.

Classifying the crime of murder into varying degrees is a statutory creation and is not required by the constitution. The legislature could, if it so desired, create only one crime of murder. Thus, in states where the felonies that are predicate crimes for the felony murder rule are specifically enumerated by statute and no catch-all category reminiscent of the common law felony murder rule exists, the merger doctrine is not appropriate. Van Zanten, 93 Iowa L. Rev. at 1576 (citing State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759, 774-75 (Tenn.2001)).

In Godsey, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. 60 S.W.3d at 764, 769. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. Id. at 764, 770. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the defendant argued that the merger doctrine precluded a felony murder conviction based on aggravated child abuse. Id. at 774. The court disagreed, explaining

Courts have generally declined to hold that the merger doctrine implicates any principle of constitutional law. Instead, courts have viewed the merger doctrine as a principle for discerning legislative intent and, more specifically, as a principle that preserves “some meaningful domain in which the Legislature's careful graduation of homicide offenses can be implemented.” Accordingly, the merger doctrine has not been widely accepted. The doctrine has been applied largely in those states where the felony murder statute fails to specifically list the felonies capable of supporting a felony murder conviction. Where a legislature explicitly states that a particular felony is a predicate felony for felony-murder, no ‘merger’ occurs.”

Id. at 774-75 (citations and footnote omitted).

Another limitation on the scope of the felony murder rule, and the one used in this state, is to apply the rule only to those felonies specifically enumerated by statute. In Florida, a defendant may be convicted of first-degree murder if the unlawful killing of a human being is: 1) perpetrated from a premeditated design to cause the death of a human being; 2) caused by a person perpetrating certain enumerated felonies or 3) caused by the distribution of certain specified controlled substances. See § 782.04(1)(a)1.-3., Fla. Stat. (2007). The second category is commonly referred to as the “felony murder statute,” which provides:

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

* * *

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or

* * *

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

§ 782.04(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added).

The appellant urges us to reverse her convictions of aggravated child abuse and felony murder on the basis of Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181 (Fla.2005). In that case, Brooks was charged with two counts of first-degree murder on the alternative theories of premeditated murder and felony murder with a weapon for the stabbing deaths of a woman and her three-month-old daughter. Id. at 186, 217. The underlying felony for the felony murder theory was aggravated child abuse as provided in section 782.04(1)(a)2.h. Brooks was not charged separately with aggravated child abuse. Id. at 217. Upon retrial, Brooks was convicted by a general jury verdict of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Id. at 187, 217.

On direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Brooks argued inter alia, that the merger doctrine precluded the use of aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony. Id. at 197-98. The Court agreed, stating

[H]ad Brooks been charged with aggravated child abuse, he could not have been convicted of that crime.... In light of the fact that Brooks delivered a single stabbing blow that resulted in [the child's] death, the act constituting the aggravated child abuse merged into the infant's homicide.

* * *

[T]he instant case involved
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Parsons v. Culp
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 17, 2021
    ...in the dog-bite statute apply to actions brought under the dog-damage statute was dicta, not binding precedent. See Lewis v. State , 34 So. 3d 183, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("[A] pronouncement of law that is ultimately immaterial to the outcome of the case" is not "part of the holding in the......
  • Caylor v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 13, 2012
    ...been called into question by several district courts of appeal. See Rosa v. State, 58 So.3d 900 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011); Lewis v. State, 34 So.3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review granted, 53 So.3d 230 (Fla.2011); Sturdivant v. State, –––So.3d ––––, 2010 WL 3464410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review gra......
  • Caylor v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 27, 2011
    ...been called into question by several district courts of appeal. See Rosa v. State, 58 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Lewis v. State, 34 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review granted, 53 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 2011); Sturdivant v. State, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1993 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 7, 2010), revi......
  • Miles v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2022
    ...is dictum." (citing State v. Yule , 905 So. 2d 251, 259 n.10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Canady, J., specially concurring))); Lewis v. State , 34 So. 3d 183, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("When a court makes a pronouncement of law that is ultimately immaterial to the outcome of the case, it cannot be sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Crimes
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • April 30, 2021
    ...murder. A single act can constitute both aggravated child abuse and felony murder under the statute (question certified). Lewis v. State, 34 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) Second District Court of Appeal Trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the char......
  • § 31.06 Murder: Felony-Murder Rule
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 31 Criminal Homicide
    • Invalid date
    ...independent felony as the independent underlying purpose of a robber is unlawfully to take property from another).[144] Lewis v. State, 34 So. 3d 183, 184-85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010).[145] Barnett v. State, 783 So. 927, 930 (Ala. Crim. Ct. App. 2000) ("the Legislature did not intend for f......
  • § 31.06 MURDER: FELONY-MURDER RULE
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 31 Criminal Homicide
    • Invalid date
    ...376 P.3d 815, 822 (N.M. 2016) (felony of "shooting from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm" merges).[144] . Lewis v. State, 34 So. 3d 183, 184-85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010).[145] . Barnett v. State, 783 So. 927, 930 (Ala. Crim. Ct. App. 2000) ("the Legislature did not intend for felo......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...274 Letterlough, People v., 655 N.E.2d 146 (N.Y. 1995), 25 Levesque, Commonwealth v., 766 N.E.2d 50 (Mass. 2002), 103 Lewis v. State, 34 So. 3d 183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), 494, 495 Lewis, Commonwealth v., 409 N.E.2d 771 (Mass. 1980), 475 Lewis, People v., 36 Cal. 531 (1869), 304 Liberta......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT