State v. Irizarry
This text of 763 P.2d 432 (State v. Irizarry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Facts of Case
In the course of the planned robbery of a pizza deliveryman in Tacoma, Brander Allan Castle was stabbed to death in the early morning hours of July 8, 1984. In connection therewith, Ricardo M. Irizarry pleaded guilty to felony murder in exchange for his testimony at the trial of the defendant herein, Michael Alan Ransom.
[592]*592The defendant Ransom was tried before a jury on the charge of aggravated murder in the first degree. At the request of the prosecution, and over defense objections, the jury was not only instructed on the crime of aggravated murder in the first degree but also on the "included offense" of felony murder.
The defendant Ransom was convicted of the "included offense" of felony murder. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified his appeal to this court.1 We accepted review.
One principal issue is presented.
Issue
Is the crime of felony murder a lesser included offense within the crime of aggravated murder in the first degree?
Decision
Conclusion. Felony murder is not a lesser included offense within the offense of aggravated murder in the first degree, and the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it was. The defendant's conviction of this nonincluded offense constitutes prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
It is fundamental that under our state constitution an accused person must be informed of the criminal charge he or she is to meet at trial, and cannot be tried for an offense not charged.2 This rule is subject to two statutory exceptions: (1) where a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense of the one charged in the information (RCW 10.61.006); and (2) where a defendant is convicted of an offense which is a crime of an inferior degree to the one charged (RCW 10.61.003).3
[593]*593The first degree murder statute (RCW 9A.32.030) defines the three different ways in which the crime of murder in the first degree can be committed:
1. Premeditated murder (RCW 9A.32.030(l)(a));
2. Murder by extreme indifference to human life (RCW 9A.32.030(l)(b)); and
3. Felony murder (RCW 9A.32.030(l)(c)).4
The statute defining aggravated first degree murder is equally clear;5 that crime is premeditated murder in the first degree (not murder by extreme indifference or felony [594]*594murder) accompanied by the presence of one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances listed in the criminal procedure title of the code (RCW 10.95.020).6 These statutory aggravating circumstances are "aggravation of penalty" factors and are not "elements" of the crime as such.7 A lesser included offense exists only "when all of the elements of the lesser offense are necessary elements of the greater offense." (Italics ours.)8 Because commission of a felony is not a necessary element of aggravated murder in the first degree, it follows that the offense of felony murder cannot [595]*595be an included offense within the charge of aggravated murder in the first degree. Similarly, felony murder is not a lesser degree of aggravated murder in the first degree.9
In State v. Mak, 105 Wn.2d 692, 718 P.2d 407, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 93 L. Ed. 2d 599, 107 S. Ct. 599 (1986), instructions on felony murder as a lesser included offense were given to the jury by the trial court in a case involving aggravated murder in the first degree.10 As we there held, this did not constitute reversible error because it was the defendant who requested those instructions. As we pointed out in that connection, the lesser included offense instruction, not having been excepted to at trial by the defendant, became the law of the case; further, any error in connection therewith was error invited by the defendant which could not be complained of on appeal.11 In the case before us, however, the defendant duly excepted to the giving of the felony murder included offense instructions, thus preserving his claim of error for appeal.
Since the defendant in this case was charged with aggravated murder in the first degree (i.e., the crime of premeditated murder in the first degree plus a statutory aggravating circumstance), an instruction on the lesser included offense of premeditated murder in the first degree (i.e., the crime of premeditated murder in the first degree without statutory aggravating circumstances) could have been given.12
Since the defendant was not convicted of premeditated murder in the first degree (nor of any lesser included [596]*596offense or lesser degree of that crime), reversal is mandated.13
Dismissal of all charges against the defendant is not, however, mandated. The jury having convicted the defendant of felony murder, albeit improperly, the defendant may still be charged with that offense without violating constitutional double jeopardy prohibitions.14
The remaining contention of the defendant's appeal is not well taken. Excusing prospective jurors for cause, where they were opposed to the death penalty, was not error as he now contends. The law of this state is well settled in that regard.15
Reversed and remanded.
Brachtenbach, J., and Hamilton, J. Pro Tern., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
763 P.2d 432, 111 Wash. 2d 591, 1988 Wash. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-irizarry-wash-1988.