Opinion ID: 2198104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Superior Court's Decision

Text: In concluding that the murder was committed in furtherance of the felonious robbery, the Superior Court relied primarily on Burrell's trial testimony and other statements he had given to the police. In his recorded interview with the police in 1998, Burrell explained: She pulled the safe out and started putting it in the bag. And then when I was going toward her, she kind of pushed me, and I went to go hit her, and at some point as he had the safety on too, I figured there was no bullets in it. I went to hit her. The gun went down. I guess my finger hit the trigger. I heard a shot, looked down and her head kind of moved up and back down and she just dropped. [14] In his cross-examination at trial, Burrell presented a similar recollection of the events just before the shooting when he testified, as follows: What happened, she had pulled the safe out. She was putting money in the bag, and the money from the top drawer had fell out, and she was  she just kept on picking it up, and then somehow with her arm, it was her upper body, had pushed back and hit me in my leg, and I went to pull back with my right hand, and that's when the gun went off. Burrell also testified that: I don't recall whether I was going to hit her or whether I was moving back from where she had pushed me, I don't know. After reviewing portions of Burrell's trial testimony and his prior statements, the Superior Court made the following factual findings and reached the following legal conclusion. The Court finds that even under the Defendant's own version, he reacted to Ms. Fenwick's movement which he perceived as threatening and intended to prevent her from resisting his demand to put the money and safe in his bookbag and to prevent her from interfering with the robbery. This conduct intended to quash the victim's resistance to the robbery clearly meets the requirements of progressing the robbery forward and complies with the mandates of the Williams decision. As such, not only did the shooting occur during the commission of the robbery, it was done in furtherance of the robbery by eliminating the perceived threatening conduct of the victim so that the robbery could be completed. [15] The historical findings of fact that were relied upon by the Superior Court in deciding Burrell's second Rule 61 motion for post-conviction relief are based upon competent evidence presented at the August 1999 trial. Those factual findings are not clearly erroneous. [16] Burrell's 1998 statement to the police and his 1999 trial testimony support the Superior Court's legal conclusion that the fatal shooting of Fenwick was in furtherance of the planned robbery and that the circumstances of Fenwick's death provided a sufficient factual basis to convict Burrell of felony murder as the statute was then worded. [17] The record reflects that shooting Fenwick did move the felony forward [18] because, as the trial judge pointed out, [a]s Dolly Fenwick [was] attempting to put the safe and other money into a book bag brought by [Burrell], it appears that she made some movement that [Burrell] perceived as threatening and gave him the impression she intended to either resist or perhaps pull a gun from under the bed. [19] Burrell submits that the requirement that the killing be in furtherance of the underlying felony cannot logically be met when the killing itself was unanticipated and unintended, even though it may have been committed with a reckless state of mind. In support of that assertion, Burrell cites the Delaware Criminal Code Commentary, [20] and contends that [t]he killing itself must serve some purpose and cannot be merely a fortuitous event. This Court rejected an analogous argument in Burrell's direct appeal. There, we held that: [t]he felony murder conviction was consistent with the jury's manslaughter verdict because it reflected that a degree of homicide (manslaughter) had occurred during the commission of a felonious robbery. [21] In denying Burrell's second Rule 61 motion, the Superior Court concluded from the historical facts that Burrell's reckless conduct occurred not only during the felonious robbery but in furtherance of that objective. [22] We agree. The initial plan was for Burrell to go to the Fenwick trailer in order to commit an armed robbery. Burrell ended up shooting Fenwick in the head at close range as she was placing the safe and other money, the proceeds of the robbery, in Burrell's bag. The record reflects this reckless force was brought to bear when the gun discharged as Burrell was trying to prevent or overcome what Burrell perceived to be Fenwick's resistance to his taking of the safe and the money. [23] A reckless killing that occurs when the perpetrator is trying to neutralize someone who is resisting or in a position to prevent a robbery is conduct in furtherance of the robbery objective. [24] Therefore, we hold that the historical factual record supports the Superior Court's legal conclusion that Fenwick's murder by Burrell was in furtherance of the armed robbery that Burrell and Scott had planned.