Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Kansas • 2001

State v. Sophophone

19 P.3d 70 | 270 Kan. 703 | 2001 Kan. LEXIS 149

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case adopts an agency-based limit on Kansas felony murder: a felon is not liable when a co-felon is lawfully killed by police or another resisting third party, even though the death occurs during flight from the felony.

Background

Sophophone and three others burglarized a house in Emporia. When police arrived, the group fled. An officer captured, handcuffed, and placed Sophophone in a police car. Another officer pursued co-felon Somphone Sysoumphone, who stopped, raised himself from the ground, and fired at the officer. The officer returned fire in self-defense and killed Sysoumphone.

Sophophone was charged with conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, obstruction of official duty, and felony murder. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss the felony-murder count and later denied his motion for acquittal. A jury convicted him on all counts. Sophophone appealed only the felony-murder conviction, arguing that he could not be held liable for a co-felon’s death caused by a police officer’s lawful conduct and that State v. Hoang should be overruled.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a felon may be convicted of felony murder when a police officer lawfully kills a fleeing co-felon in self-defense during flight from an inherently dangerous felony.

Holding

No. Sophophone could not be convicted of felony murder for Sysoumphone’s death because neither Sophophone nor another felon committed the killing; it resulted from a police officer’s lawful act in self-defense while performing official duties.

Reasoning

Aggravated burglary is an inherently dangerous felony, and the killing occurred during the group’s flight from that crime. Sophophone’s arrest and placement in the police car did not create a sufficient break in circumstances to end the felony for timing purposes. Kansas considers time, distance, and the causal relationship between the felony and the killing when deciding whether a death occurred during the felony or flight from it.

But the temporal connection did not resolve the decisive question: whether Kansas’s felony-murder statute reaches a death caused by a non-felon. Courts generally use either an agency approach, which limits felony murder to killings by a felon or the felon’s agent, or a proximate-cause approach, which permits liability for any foreseeable death set in motion by the felony. The court adopted the agency approach for this circumstance.

The felony-murder rule imputes malice from the underlying felony; it does not automatically impute every killing that happens to occur during a felony. A police officer acting lawfully and in self-defense is antagonistic to the felons, not their agent. His lawful act therefore could not be attributed to Sophophone through accomplice or agency principles.

Kansas’s prior references to causation did not establish a proximate-cause version of felony murder. Those cases addressed whether a killing was sufficiently connected in time, distance, and circumstance to the underlying felony. Likewise, cases involving deaths directly caused by a felon’s conduct, such as a victim’s heart attack while bound and gagged, did not answer whether a co-felon may be held liable for a death inflicted by a lawful third party.

The statute did not clearly make a felon criminally responsible for the lawful and courageous act of an officer attempting to apprehend an armed, fleeing co-felon. Because criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused when their meaning is reasonably doubtful, the court declined to read K.S.A. 21-3401(b) as imposing murder liability here. The felony-murder doctrine principally protects innocent victims, not willing co-felons who encounter the risks of their own criminal venture.

Issue #2

Whether State v. Hoang should be overruled because it allowed felony-murder liability for the death of co-felons.

Holding

No. Hoang remained valid, but it did not control this case because the deaths in Hoang resulted directly from the wrongful acts of a co-felon rather than the lawful act of a police officer.

Reasoning

In Hoang, the defendant’s accomplices died while carrying out an arson that they and the defendant had planned. The court had held that the felony-murder statute did not expressly exclude co-felons as victims where their deaths occurred through the felons’ own dangerous conduct.

The court distinguished rather than overruled Hoang. Hoang, like other Kansas cases involving felony murder, involved a death directly caused by a felon or by the dangerous conduct of the criminal enterprise itself. Here, by contrast, no felon killed anyone; the fatal shot was lawfully fired by a police officer defending himself while pursuing an armed suspect.

Dissents

Justice Abbott

Reasoning

Justice Abbott would have affirmed the conviction. In his view, K.S.A. 21-3401(b) is unambiguous: it requires only a killing during the commission, attempted commission, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony. The statute does not require that the defendant or an accomplice be the shooter, nor does it exclude co-felons from the class of persons whose deaths can support felony murder.

He read Hoang as embracing a proximate-cause approach. Hoang stated that felony murder requires an inherently dangerous felony and a homicide that directly results from it, and it treated the identity of the triggerman as irrelevant to participating felons’ liability. The legislature had not amended the statute in the years after Hoang to add the limitations the majority imposed.

Justice Abbott maintained that Sophophone and his accomplices set in motion a foreseeable chain of dangerous events. Sysoumphone fired at a pursuing officer, and the officer’s return fire was a direct and foreseeable result of the group’s armed flight from the burglary. Under the proximate-cause approach, the lawful resistance of police or victims does not sever felony-murder liability for a death proximately resulting from the felony.

He also believed that policy supported liability because the felony-murder rule deters dangerous crimes by holding felons responsible for deaths foreseeably resulting from their conduct. In his view, the majority judicially added an agency limitation that the legislature had not enacted. Chief Justice McFarland and Justice Davis joined his dissent.