Opinion ID: 1430326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the felony-murder instruction given was inaccurate and an improper statement of the law

Text: Assuming a procedural and evidentiary foundation to give a felony-murder instruction, the instruction as given is a clear deviation from what would be a proper instruction. The majority has based the appropriateness of the instruction on its conclusion that defendant committed the underlying felony of burglary. But the instruction was not worded in such terms that the jury could only find burglary as the underlying felony. Rather, the instruction was an open invitation to the jury to find any underlying felony, even though not charged. Furthermore, the jury could well have determined that theft was the underlying felony which triggered the operation of the felony-murder rule. As previously quoted, section 45-5-102(1)(b), MCA, creates a felony-murder situation if: it is committed while the offender is engaged in or is an accomplice in the commission of, an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape, or any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Emphasis added.) If it was the State's contention that the underlying felony was burglary, the instruction should only have stated that burglary was the underlying felony upon which the State based its felony-murder theory. But the instruction included also the above-emphasized language from the statute, thus giving an open invitation to the jury to find another underlying felony. The actual instruction (instruction 16, not quoted in the majority opinion), provides as follows: You are instructed that a criminal homicide is deliberate homicide if: (1) It is committed purposely or knowingly; or (2) It is committed while the offender is engaged in flight after committing or attempting to commit burglary or any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Emphasis added.) It is obvious from this instruction that the jury was not confined to determining only that flight after a burglary triggered the application of the felony-murder rule. Rather, the felony-murder rule, by this instruction, is triggered also by flight after any other felony which involves the use of threat or physical force or violence against any individual. The State had absolutely no right to give this open-ended instruction and the trial court had a positive duty to reject this open-ended instruction.