Opinion ID: 1454668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Felony-Murder Issue

Text: The jury was instructed that it could rely on the alternate theories of premeditated murder and felony murder in arriving at its verdict on first-degree murder. Following PIK recommendations, the jury was not required to indicate which theory it relied on. The possibility exists that some jurors relied on felony murder. William contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the underlying felony in the felony-murder charge of attempted aggravated criminal sodomy. William argues that the only evidence of a sexual assault on Richard was William's confession that he attempted to have sex with Richard after Richard was dead. His argument is twofold. He contends that the first-degree murder statute, K.S.A. 21-3401, requires that the State prove the death occurred while defendant was perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony. In addition, he contends that attempting to commit sodomy on a dead body cannot be the underlying felony in felony murder because the crime of aggravated criminal sodomy cannot be accomplished on a dead body. Defendant places great weight on State v. Garcia, 243 Kan. 662, 669, 763 P.2d 585 (1988), in which this court held that if, in a prosecution for felony murder, two underlying felonies were relied on and the evidence was insufficient to convict on one of the two, the murder conviction could not stand. The State argues this case was not sent to the jury on two underlying felonies and that when both premeditated murder and felony murder are charged, the jury can convict on either theory, i.e., premeditated murder or felony murder or a combination of the two, citing State v. Wise, 237 Kan. 117, 697 P.2d 1295 (1985), and State v. McCowan, 226 Kan. 752, 759, 602 P.2d 1363 (1979). The error, if any, in this type of case is usually whether the trial court allows a criminal charge to be submitted to the jury that should have been dismissed. Here, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The issue is not whether there is sufficient evidence for the entire jury to convict on felony murder, but whether one or more reasonable jurors could have relied on felony murder because, when alternate theories of first-degree murder are charged, jurors can rely on either theory. Here, the trial court refused to grant defendant's motion for acquittal and submitted the issue of felony murder to the jury. The trial court's duty has been before this court many times. For example, in State v. Fosnight, 235 Kan. 52, Syl. ¶ 1, 679 P.2d 174 (1984), we said: A trial judge, in passing on a motion for judgment of acquittal, must determine whether upon the evidencegiving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact therefroma reasonable mind or a rational trier of facts might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The same test applies as our scope of review for this issue. In a criminal case, we review all the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution and, if the evidence there convinces us that a rational factfinder could have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, reh. denied 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979); State v. Graham, 247 Kan. 388, 799 P.2d 1003 (1990). K.S.A. 21-3501(2) defines sodomy as oral or anal copulation . . . or any penetration of the anal opening by any body part or object. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute sodomy. Criminal sodomy is defined as sodomy between persons of the same sex or between a person and an animal. K.S.A. 21-3505(1). Aggravated criminal sodomy is sodomy with a child who is not married to the offender and who is under 16 years of age. K.S.A. 21-3506(a). William correctly argues that criminal sodomy (or aggravated criminal sodomy) may not be committed on a dead body. The underlying felony was, however, attempted aggravated criminal sodomy. An attempt at a crime is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime. K.S.A. 21-3301(a). Defendant's basic arguments (other than that his statements are not admissible, which will be discussed later) is that no overt act occurred while Richard was alive and that it is impossible to commit attempted aggravated sodomy on a dead body. The attempt (overt act) must occur before the accused knows the victim is dead. It is the intent of the accused to attempt to commit the crime that is at issue and, if the accused did not know the victim was dead, the defense of impossibility would not prohibit a conviction of attempted aggravated criminal sodomy. The defense of impossibility, K.S.A. 21-3301(b), provides: It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that the circumstances under which the act was performed or the means employed or the act itself were such that the commission of the crime was not possible. In State v. Logan & Cromwell, 232 Kan. 646, 656 P.2d 777 (1983), this court held that K.S.A. 21-3301(b) eliminates both factual impossibility and legal impossibility as defenses to an attempted crime. The court gave as examples of factual or legal impossibilities concerning attempted murder: A fires shots into a bed believing his enemy B is asleep thereon. If B were in fact dead rather than asleep on the bed when the shots were fired, the doctrine of legal impossibility would be applicable. If however, B heard A coming and was hiding in the closet when the shots were fired, then a case of factual impossibility is presented. 232 Kan. at 647, 656 P.2d 777. Logan & Cromwell would only apply, however, when the accused did not know the person was dead. One element of an attempt is intent to commit the crime. If the accused knows the person is dead, and it is legally impossible to commit the crime against the dead person, then there could be no intent. Consequently, here, if William knew that Richard was dead, and the only evidence points to an attempt after the death, then the defense has a valid point. The continuous transaction theory also is an issue that affects whether aggravated sodomy may be attempted on a dead body. The defendant relies on People v. Sellers, 203 Cal.App.3d 1042, 250 Cal.Rptr. 345 (1988). In Sellers, the defendant had been convicted of felony murder, with the underlying felony being rape. The evidence showed that sexual penetration took place after the victim was dead. The Court of Appeals held that felony murder could not be based on such facts, even by use of a continuous transaction theory because it would amount to turning intercourse with a dead body into rape. 203 Cal.App.3d at 1053-54, 250 Cal.Rptr. 345. Sellers is not on point. It does not concern an attempt. In two prior California cases, however, courts held that felony murder could be based on attempted rape when actual penetration took place after the victim was dead. See People v. Quicke, 61 Cal.2d 155, 158, 37 Cal.Rptr. 617, 390 P.2d 393 (1964); People v. Booker, 69 Cal.App.3d 654, 666, 138 Cal.Rptr. 347 (1977). The Sellers court quoted with approval from Booker: `When a conviction of first degree murder is based on the theory of killing during an attempted rape, it is irrelevant whether the victim was already dead at the time of penetration.' (Italics added.) Sellers, 203 Cal.App.3d at 1053, 250 Cal.Rptr. 345 (quoting Booker, 69 Cal.App.3d at 666, 138 Cal.Rptr. 347). See People v. Goodridge, 70 Cal.2d 824, 76 Cal.Rptr. 421, 452 P.2d 637 (1969). Felony murder may be based on attempted aggravated sodomy (or attempted rape) whenever the murder is connected with the attempt. However, application of the felony-murder rule is questionable when the attempt at sexual contact occurs after the victim is already dead. A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, and intent as an element of a crime may be shown by acts, circumstances, and inferences reasonably deductible therefrom. State v. Keeler, 238 Kan. 356, 359, 710 P.2d 1279 (1985). The evidence is as follows: One law enforcement officer asked William what had led up to the killing. The officer testified he asked William if it had been his desire to have sex with Richard, and he replied that he really didn't want to talk about it, but he had thought about it and that he had been fighting the desire to have sexual contact with Richard for a long time. William referred to this desire as the temptation. The officer went on to testify: Q. Did you have any further discussion about the killing of Richard Settlemyre? A. Yes, I did. Q. And would you describe for us what the discussion was after that? A. Well, I had asked him what had led up to the killing of Richard, and we went into more detail as far as explaining his sexual urges. Q. Is there anything you recall specifically about that conversation? A. I recall him telling me that he had not had sex with a woman since he had been on the road, and he clarified that by telling me it had been quite a period of time, and he told me that Richard was the closest thing that he could find to a woman. (Emphasis supplied.) William told Detective Davis, prior to his interrogators' learning the condition of Richard's remains, You are trying to say I raped and mutilized [ sic ] him. Richard's clothing was found over 90 feet from where his body was found. William stated that Richard was born naked and he died naked. Although the record concerning the attempted sexual assault is such that William only expressly admitted to a physical sexual assault after Richard's death, the jury was not bound by that representation, considering the other evidence present. The jeans shorts of Richard and the jeans worn by William had only a few spots of blood on them, which gives some indication they were not being worn at the moment Richard's throat was cut. It was established that William was wearing a green T-shirt when he left with Richard. Green cloth was found at the murder scene that appeared to be T-shirt material. The cloth contained Richard's blood, hair similar to that of Richard, and a piece of human bone. No evidence was offered that the green cloth was, in fact, a T-shirt or that it was the T-shirt William was wearing. William gave the officers four different versions of what happened to the T-shirt, ranging from his having given it to an unidentified woman who laundered his clothes to a story that he set the shirt on fire and placed the burning shirt on a raft and allowed it to drift down the river. The State argues that a reasonable person could conclude that neither Richard nor William were wearing their pants when Richard was killed and that William was wearing a green T-shirt that was found at the crime scene as green rags. This evidence has some probative value. William also had a history of bondage with the Settlemyre boys. Fishing cord (described as trout line cord) was found among William's possessions after the crime that matched three pieces of cord found at the crime scene in lengths that a reasonable person could conclude were used to bind Richard's hands and feet. One of the pieces of cord found at the crime scene had human blood on it. The State's pathologist testified he found no evidence that Richard had been tied up when he was killed and, if Richard had been, he should have found marks on his person. A reasonable jury could conclude that the cord was removed before Richard was killed or that no marks were found because Richard's hands and feet (as well as his head, both breasts, penis, and scrotum) were severed from his body and that the severing process eliminated any bondage marks. Richard was taken to a remote area where the trees and brush were thick enough that light could not penetrate to the ground. A reasonable jury could conclude William did this in order to have sex with Richard unobserved. This court has held that mere arrival at the scene where the crime is to be committed is sufficient to constitute an overt act. See State v. Chism, 243 Kan. 484, 490, 759 P.2d 105 (1988). We have further said that No definite rule as to what constitutes an overt act for the purposes of attempt can or should be laid down. Each case must depend largely on its particular facts and the inferences which the jury may reasonably draw therefrom. State v. Garner, 237 Kan. 227, Syl. ¶ 3, 699 P.2d 468 (1985). We are satisfied that all the evidence before the jury, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is such that a reasonable person could weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom and conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that William killed Richard as a result of an attempt to commit aggravated criminal sodomy. Thus, the trial court did not err in submitting the issue to the jury on both felony-murder and premeditated murder theories.