Murder? But he didn’t kill anyone
A man who police said waited in a car while an accomplice allegedly robbed a pharmacy faces a murder charge in his partner’s death under a seldom-used Indiana law.
So reads the lead sentence of the Indy Star story up today on Wayne County’s recent CVS robbery gone wrong. AJ Potter allegedly was in the process of tapping into the OxyContin supply at the Cambridge City CVS when he was confronted by 2 local police officers. The officers say they opened fire when Potter pulled a gun. Potter was killed after being hit 7 times.
Potter’s friend/associate/ride?, Tucker Hunt, was in a car outside the store, and the state is accusing him of being the getaway driver, and hence, involved in the robbery.
The “seldom used law” mentioned in the Star article is the second subsection of Indiana’s murder statute, IC 35-42-1-1. This paragraph defines murder as being where a person “kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit . . . robbery.”
Many local folks are upset that Hunt got charged with murder as: (1) he did not kill anyone, (2) he did not intend for anyone to be killed, (3) the police were the ones who actually killed Potter. To get a sense of this local sentiment, check out the Pal-Item’s forum: Man gets charged with murder for a life he didn’t take.
Wayne County prosecutor, Michael Shipman is quoted in the Star article explaining the charge:
Indiana law says that if a defendant engages in a felony crime and a person gets killed in the commission of that crime, then the defendant can be charged for murder.
I think Mike is right on the law, and despite what folks may think, I bet the legislature intended for accomplices to be subject to a murder charge if the serious crime being undertaken goes wrong, and someone gets killed, even the gunman himself. I do not know the statistics, but I wonder where the Star got the idea that this was a seldom used law.
May 12th, 2006 09:30
That’s just a felony murder charge isn’t it? That’s a pretty old doctrine — seems like we spent the better part of a week on it in law school.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder
May 12th, 2006 09:47
Yeah. It’s just felony murder. “Ancient” would be a good word to use, but you would not know it by the surprise many in the community are expressing with its application in this case.
I was interested to see that the UK abolished the doctrine way back in the 50’s. Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I did not even think to look there. it was like a walk down memory lane:
“The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the Limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended. Thus, in a classic example, a poacher shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the mens rea of the poaching is transferred to the actus reus of the killing.”
May 12th, 2006 12:28
Maybe it is a seldom understood law. Most people who haven’t been to law school probably don’t know that there is such a thing as “felony murder.”