No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder
 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...illed-intruder

I can't get the article excerpt to copy right, but basically an 18 year old widow (her husband was 58 and had just been buried that day - which I'm sure is it's own story) with a 3 month old baby used deadly force against an intruder which is permissable in OK. The intruder's accomplice is being charged with the muder. Where I think this story is goofy is that it said she had been on the line with the 911 operator for 20 minutes...where were the police?

The way it sounded to me was that she was in a very rural area. 20 minutes for a police or EMS response is not unheard of in some areas near where I live.

And good for her. Despite her odd situation with the husband, she was smart enough to keep a cool head about her during this whole thing and did the right thing.

The woman did what she felt necessary to do for her and her child's safety, but I'm not understanding why the accomplice was charged with first degree murder?

From the article:

Quote:

Prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots. "When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.

No, I read it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The accomplice didn't pull the trigger, obviously. I would assume that investigators ruled out the possibility that the accomplice wasn't somehow forced to participate, but that's not known from the article.

The prosecutors are using the felony murder rule http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

As long as there is a felony act in which a death occurs, you can be charged with that murder even though you had no intent to kill nor did you actually pull the trigger.

DaffyKD

GOOD GIRL!!! Proud of her & her shooting skills. She could be a Texan, although we wouldn't bother to ask a 911 operator for permission to kill the bastards. I'm just sorry that she didn't get them both.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a injustice to me. The other guy was in no way responsible for the other person being killed.

He was involved with the robbery, so it's not as if he was an innocent bystander.

And this is not the first time I've heard of something like this happening.

I have no argument with the felony murder rule, but I hadn't heard of it being applied in a case where the death was the death of an accomplice. Victim, bystander, cop, firefighter, yes, but not a fellow perpetrator. Maybe someone with more criminal experience than I have can tell me if this is usually the charge on these facts.

He wasn't an innocent bystander, but I believe in charging somebody for the crime they committed. I don't see how they can possibly justify interperating the statute like that. Then again, I am nowhere near qualified to commit on legal matters.

Thanks for the definition KD. It now "hangs together" as far as it goes, and technically answers my question.

Here's what gave thought to my earlier comment, however. How is it that criminal participants can do/commit the same crime, yet one or more often get lesser or more severe sentences than their co-criminals (and I undertstand people turning state's evidence on each other in exchange for lighter sentences.) Are their reasons, other than state's evidence, for this?

And, in your opinion, does the co-criminal in the OP likely carry the 1st degree charge becuase a death occurred?

Don't you just love the way I assumed you were an attorney?

It is not uncommon.

It's not an unusual interpretation, though many states have some restrictions on which felonies can underlie the felony murder rule.

The general idea is this: if one forms the intent to commit a felony and carries out that felony, then one can be charged with any death that occurs as as a result from the commission of that felony. In other words, if you break into someone's house to commit robbery, you then have to accept the consequences if a death result from that crime, even if it's the death of your accomplice.

At least that's the general idea. Exactly how it works in Oklahoma, someone else would have to say. Paging Kevin!

Just read this story from several other sources and one of them called her the "Make My Day Mom". LOVE IT!!!

Unable to give opinion. Although I graduated from law school, I never passed the bar and thus am not an attorney.

DaffyKD

Thanks.

At least in my state, felony murder is/can be first degree. A lot of the reasoning behind the rule has to do with foreseeability. If you burn a building down, you it is foreseeable that an occupant or firefighter may killed, even if you thought the building was empty and no one would fight the fire. So the intent comes in when you intend to commit the violent felony (arson, robbery, rape, kidnapping) where someone COULD get killed.

So if I understand what you are saying, the logic is that this death wouldn't have happened if they didn't decide to break in? And because of that, it is considered a consequence of that decision to break, thus holding him responsible? Meh IDK if I agree with that logic but I think I understand it

Pretty much. This guy intended to break and commit robbery, therefore he is deemed to have intended any consequence that might fliow from the commission of that felony.

FWIW, the basic idea is centuries old -- like maybe about seven or eight centuries. Don't know if that makes you feel any better about it. :D

I agree with the girl's right to defend herself and her child (even though I don't like that someone died) but, while I understand the with the interpretation of this law, I disagree with it.

That is different than what happened here. A firefighter or occupant is an unwilling participant in the fire--the arsonist would have started that fire with no regard to their wills or wishes and would thus be responsible for the situation. The person who was shot in this scenario was (presumably) willingly and knowingly burglarizing the house with his accomplice. That is why it isn't logical to me that someone is responsible for his own actions yet someone else is responsible for his consequences.

They were acting together, so they share responsibility for what happens.

I'm glad she protected herself and child. I hope, though, that she gets some good counseling. Shooting someone else is no joke and given the other stuff going on in her life she might have trouble dealing with the fallout.

I read somewhere else that she had had run-ins with the guy she shot prior to the break-in. That set off the "not only there to commit robbery" bells in my head.

Yep. Drugs kill in one way or another. Shame on him for trying to prey on an 18 year old newly single mom at the holiday season anyway. How low can you get?

I still disagree with that logic. It just isn't sensible to me but since I'm neither a criminal nor an OK resident, my support isn't important. :p

So what if he hadn't died -- would the accomplice have gotten lesser charges (assault witha dealt weapon or something similar)? If they had both been shot and injured, would they both have been charged because each was responsible for the other's injury? Serious question, I'm unfamiliar with this law so Idk how far it goes.

Well, as far as I know, you could see the same result in any state.

As noted up-thread, he was charged with murder under the felony murder rule. So, while a general theory of transferred intent lies behind it, it only applies when someone is killed. And like I said earlier, in most states (as far as I know), only some felonies can serve to support the felony murder rule. It basically means that if you commit a felony (many states will specify which felonies), you can be charged with first degree murder if someone is killed during the commission of the felony. The usual rule for first degree murder -- that the person charged formed the specific intent to kill -- is suspended, and the intent to commit the underlying felony also serves as the necessary intent for purposes of first degree murder.

[NOTE: the following explanation will not necessarily be explicitly correct from a legal standpoint, but is intended to be illustrative instead]

CG, it might help to think about this in terms of "accessory to murder" ... many of us are familiar with that term from a variety of media or other sources. If you're part of a robbery and your accomplice shoots, say, the bank teller, you will also be charged with first degree murder, even if you had no idea the other guy had a gun, were in a different room, whatever.

Most of us agree with the underlying logic: you were there, you were acting in the same vein to commit the original crime, therefore you are responsible by extension for what happens.

The felony murder rule extends to any killing, though - not just one by the perpetrators of the original crime. We see it more often with accomplices, but it's basically the same thing, from a legal standpoint: once you start the train rolling, you are responsible for anything that happens on the tracks.

So did I. Apparently they followed her back to her place after she declined their advances at a convenience store.

Apparently no one watches Law & Order...this is a daily occurance on that show. ;)

The theory of felony murder arising from the death of an accomplice is something I understand to be a minority view, or at least that's what the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' members who dissented from the earlier cases on the subject stated.

Thanks for the explanation, MC!

Yes, it helps to further understand it. However, I disagree with this, too. A person sets out to commit robbery and commits only robbery yet is charged with a murder when he did not commit murder? Again, I understand why he would be called an accessory but that course of punishment just seems like such a...fallacy. Now, in the case of this...
Responsible for what happens to those innocent bystanders who weren't aware? Yes. Responsible for what happens to the other one who set the train rolling? Well, he also started the train rolling so it's his own fault he was on the tracks when he knew full well there was a runaway train.

LOL I'm not trying to argue with you, promise. :) I just think differently.

Unfortunately, it's the exact opposite of a fallacy - in fact, it's practically the only way it can be done.

First, it's nearly impossible to prove that a person set out to 'only' commit robbery - are there extensive notes beforehand? A mission statement for the crime? Some sort of compact saying "DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE" that the other criminal violated?

Second, juries get to decide these matters, so it isn't as if the person is immediately locked away for life - they get a day in court. They'll be charged - and I'm sure you can see why.

Third, it would be incredibly difficult to write the law to work in any other fashion, and still be effective.

This applies to every (criminal) party involved though, does it not? How do you differentiate?

Put another way: you've basically said "the guy getting shot is responsible for getting himself shot." But the other guy did the exact same thing! Doesn't this mean he is ALSO responsible for getting the other guy shot?

That's the genesis of the rule, almost explicitly.

^^^I can appreciate the thought process but this is all beside my point. A man is being charged with a murder when he was not the murderer and I see flaw in that. I just stated an opinion on the topic at hand--you don't have to agree that the flaw is there and I'm really not trying to challenge you on it.

By saying "he was not the murderer" you kind of are challenging it :p

That is another debate. ;) :D

Well technically he wouldn't be a murderer until he was convicted of murder wouldn't he?

I think he would be a murderer if he murdered someone. I mean, is a thief not a thief if he is never caught and convicted of theft?

Oh snap, we just got philosophical up in here!

ETA: LOL Seriously, so are you using "murder" only as a legal term and not literally to mean "having killed someone?" I just looked it up and saw there's a difference. #googleismyfriend

i'm glad she shot one before they hurt her and her baby. tangent:

probably the same place they were when a 16-year-old girl married a man 40 years her senior. or when he knocked her up the next year.
gross:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...70_634x360.jpg
"i'm here for the gangbang."

I read something somewhere that he wasn't the biological father to her child. That he knew he was dying, and married her so that someone (a young teen mom) would benefit from his death. I'll try to find it.

I'm sure the age of consent comes into play. Icky, yes. But legal, yes. No different than the Courtney Stodden chick and her creepy ass actor husband.

That may well be the case. I don't know. I know I have seen it applied this way, but how many states would do so, I don't know.