Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2018 Unusual: The Death Penalty for Inadvertent Killing Guyora Binder Brenner M. Fissell Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Robert Weisberg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Guyora Binder, Brenner M. Fissell, and Robert Weisberg, Unusual: The Death Penalty for Inadvertent Killing, 93 Ind. L. J. 549 (2018) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/1250 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unusual: The Death Penalty for Inadvertent Killing GuYoRA BINDER, BRENNER FISSELL & ROBERT WEISBERG Can a burglarwho frightens the occupant ofa house, causing afatalheart attack, be executed? More generally, does the Eighth Amendment permit capitalpunishment of one who causes death inadvertently? This scenario is possible in the significant minority ofAmerican jurisdictionsthat permit capitalpunishment for felony murder without requiring a mental state of intent to kill or reckless indifference to human life. Thus far, Eighth Amendment death penaltyjurisprudence has required a culpa- ble mental state of recklessnessfor execution of accomplices in a fatal felony, but has not yet addressedthe culpability requiredfor execution of the actual killer. In this Article, we urge the recognition of a new Eighth Amendment norm against exe- cuting even actual killers who lack a culpable mental state of at least recklessness, with respect to the victim's death. Using the methods employed by the Supreme Court for determining "evolving standards of decency," we survey the pertinent homicide and sentencing laws of thefifty-three criminal law jurisdictionsin the United States. Second, we evaluate the facts of the cases that resulted in the nearly five hundred executions that have taken place since 1973, when the post-Furmanstatutes became operative, and 2016, in those jurisdictionspermitting execution for inadvertentkill- ing. We did the samefor the facts ofthe 1755 cases ofall death row inmates convicted in those jurisdictionsand alive at the time of the study (2016). This analysis shows that capital punishment for inadvertent killing has become "truly unusual, " and therefore, unconstitutional. * Guyora Binder is a SUNY Distinguished Professor and Hodgson Russ Scholar at the University at Buffalo Law School; Brenner Fissell is an Associate Professor of Law at Hofstra University from September 2018; Robert Weisberg is the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Thanks are owed to research assistants Caroline Cohn, Sarah Gilmartin, Raphael Ginsburg, Katherine Guthrie, Savannah Haynes, David Oyer, Clare Riva, Daphna Spivack, Alex Treiger, and Abigail Xu, working under the leadership of Sophia Whiting at Stanford, and Kristian Klepes, Alyssa Bergsten, Jessica Gill, Ian Edelstein- Herrmann, and Griffin Dault at Buffalo. We are also grateful to Nina Rivkind, for encouraging our interest in this issue. 550 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 93:549 INTRODUCTION ................................................... ....... 550 I. THE PROBLEM: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR UNINTENTIONAL FELONY MURDER 553 II. DETERMINING A NEW STANDARD OF DECENCY ............ ................ 556 A. COMPARATIVE VS. CATEGORICAL REVIEW OF SENTENCES....................556 1. OBJECTIVE INDICIA..........................................558 2. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT-PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT AND CULPABILITY ........................................................560 III. OBJECTIVE INDICIA REGARDING INADVERTENT KILLINGS ................ 562 A. LEGISLATION .................................................... 562 B. STATE PRACTICE ................................................. 564 1. METHOD-Focus PRIMARILY ON EXECUTIONS ..... ............ 564 2. THE EXECUTION DATA ............................................. 568 3. SENTENCING DATA...........................................576 i. WEAPONLESS BEATINGS & SEXUAL PENETRATION................579 ii. FIRE AND FIREARMS ........................................ 584 iii. ANALYSIS ............................................ 587 CONCLUSION ................................................................... 588 APPENDIX A: FELONY MURDER EXECUTIONS .......................... 589 SHOOTING .......................................................... 589 BLADE.............................................................592 BLUDGEONING ................................. .................... 593 STRANGLING ...................................... ................. 594 OTHER.............................................................595 SUFFOCATION.......................................................595 WEAPONLESS BEATINGS ...................................... ....... 595 APPENDIX B: FELONY MURDER DEATH SENTENCES .......................... 596 SHOOTINGS ........................................... .. ............ 596 BLADED WEAPONS ...................................................... 604 STRANGULATIONS ...................................... ............ 608 BLUDGEONINGS ............................................. ........ 611 BURNING.................................... ....................... 613 BOUND AND ABANDONED .............................. .. ............ 614 INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ......................................... 614 SUFFOCATION......................................................614 DROWNING ................................................... ...... 614 VEHICLE...........................................................615 WEAPONLESS BEATINGS & SEXUAL PENETRATION .......... ........... 615 INTRODUCTION We usually think of murder as unlawful, intentional killing. Lawyers and law stu- dents know, however, that in most American jurisdictions, one can also commit mur- der by participating in certain felonies during which a victim is killed-whether or not one intends that the victim die, and whether or not one causes the death. This is 2018] THE DEATH PENALTY FOR INADVERTENT KILLING 551 the so-called felony murder doctrine. A consequence of being a "murderer," though, even of the "felony murder" variety, can be capital punishment.' Because the felony murder doctrine extends liability for murder beyond the per- son who directly causes death, the Supreme Court has placed limitations on execu- tion for felony murder. In Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona, the Court deter- mined that accomplices to felony murder cannot be executed without proof of a culpable mental state of intent to kill, or of reckless indifference to life.2 The Court has not, however, stipulated that any baseline mental state is required for the actual killer. The Court has probably not needed to do so because the circumstances of most killings evidence intent to kill or reckless indifference to human life. According to the FBI, the vast majority of homicides are committed by shooting the victim with a firearm;' in these cases, the use of a deadly weapon against the victim shows a will- ingness to kill and-together with other circumstances--may show a purpose of doing so. But this is not always the case. One can kill a person inadvertently-without awareness that one is imposing a danger of death. If this happens during a felony, the inadvertent killer may be liable for felony murder. In one remarkable dissenting opin- ion, a justice on the California Supreme Court catalogued some of the arguably ab- surd applications of the felony murder doctrine: (a) A burglar startles a resident, who dies of a heart attack. (Cf. People v. Stamp (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 203, 82 Cal.Rptr. 598.) (b) A robber inflicts only a minor injury, but the victim dies weeks later of unexpected medical complications. (c) While defendant is on the way to committing an armed robbery, his gun fires accidentally, killing his accomplice. (Cf. People v. Johnson (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 653, 104 Cal.Rptr. 807.) (d) While defendant is driving the get-away car, he causes an accident, killing a bystander. (Cf. People v. Fuller(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 618, 150 Cal.Rptr. 515.).4 How the Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence from Enmund and Tison would apply to these defendants-inadvertent actual killers-is unsettled. 1. See GUYORA BINDER, FELONY MURDER 183-247 (2012). In many jurisdictions, one can also be liable for murder-but not capital murder-by causing death with gross reckless- ness. GuYoRA BINDER, THE OXFORD INTRODUCTIONS TO U.S. LAW: CRIMINAL LAw 230 (2016). See, e.g, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1104; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5403. But see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507.020 (gross recklessness homicide a capital offense). 2. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 157-58 (1987); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801 (1982). 3. Expanded Homicide Data Table 11: Murder Circumstances, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2015), https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015 /tables/expandedhomicidedata table_11_murdercircumstancesbyweapon 2015.xls [https://perma.cc/ZG5A-LNCX] (recording that 9616 of 13,455 homicides in 2015 involved a firearm). 4. People v. Anderson, 742 P.2d 1306, 1334-35 n.3 (Cal. 1987) (Broussard, J., concur- ring and dissenting) (emphasis in original). 552 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL