BETTY LOU HABER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Haber appeals denial of her motion to vacate her conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that Florida's murder statute violates equal protection by treating accessories before the fact differently depending on whether the underlying crime involves premeditation or felony murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory distinction is rational and bears a legitimate relationship to the different criminal intents involved.
The statute does not violate equal protection because the statutory distinction between accessories to premeditated murder and accessories to felony murder is rational and bears a legitimate relationship to the distinct criminal intents involved—intent to kill versus intent to commit a felony.
[1] A statute withstands an equal protection challenge if it treats all persons within a class the same and the division into classes bears a rational relationship to a legit…
[2] The legislature may rationally decide to punish different criminal intents differently, even if those intents arise in the context of accessory liability.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To withstand an equal protection attack, a statute must treat all persons within a class the same, and the division into classes must bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state objective.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing equal protection challenges to statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaber was convicted along with Brandt and McEver of first-degree murder of Haber's husband in January 1975. Haber arranged for Brandt and McEver to en…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
Haber appeals a circuit court order denying her application for relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Her motion to vacate was based on her assertions that her judgment and sentence were void because section 782.04, Florida Statutes (1973), could not be constitutionally applied to her. Because the trial court initially and directly passed on the validity of that statute, we have jurisdiction.1
A jury convicted Haber, along with James Brandt and Arnold McEver, of the first-degree murder of Haber’s husband, which occurred in January 1975. Haber arranged for Brandt and McEver to enter the Haber home through a sliding glass door she opened before leaving for the evening. Brandt and McEver entered the house and beat Mr. Haber to death. All three defendants received life sentences. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Haber’s conviction,2 stating there was ample evidence to find Haber to be a principal to premeditated first-degree murder. Pursuant to the provisions of section 776.-011, Florida Statutes (1973),3 an accessory before the fact not present at the killing may be convicted of first-degree murder by premeditation. An accessory not present at the commission of the murder in a felony murder situation, however, is guilty only of second-degree murder. Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1976). Haber argues that this distinction violates the equal protection clause because it arbitrarily and capriciously distinguishes between different individuals who happen to be accessories before the fact.
To withstand an equal protection attack, a statute must treat all persons within a class the same, and the division into classes must bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state objective. Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1978); Davis v. Florida Power Co., 64 Fla. 246, 60 So. 759 (1913). The criminal intent of an accessory to premeditated murder is to kill a human being; the intent of an accessory to one of the felony murder felonies is to commit that felony. The legislature has decided that these two distinct criminal intents should be punished differently. These classifications are rational. All persons within these classifications are treated alike. Section 782.04, therefore, does not violate equal protection.
Affirmed.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. (1972).
. McEver v. State, 352 So. 2d 1213 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
.Currently § 777.011, Fla.Stat..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Fred v. Sasso, 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…orida constitutional provisions); Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192, 200 (Fla.1980) (applying federal and Florida provisions); In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So. 2d 40, 42 & 46 (Fla.1980) (involving only fourteenth amendment); cf. Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla.1981); contra Chapman v. Dillon. The disparity between the “substantial relationship” and “some reasonable basis” standards is perhaps best typified by Pinil-los, wherein the majority equated the “reasonable relationship” standard to the…
-
ST. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2000)…ilarly situated persons are equal under the law and must be treated alike. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Palm Harbor Special Fire Control Dist. v. Kelly, 516 So. 2d 249, 251 (Fla.1987); Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707 (Fla.1981). Moreover, without exception, all statutory classifications that treat one person or group differently than others must bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective and cannot be discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressi…
-
Palm Harbor Special Fire Control Dist. v. Celestine Kelly, 516 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1987)…oth. We now turn to the equal protection issue. It is well settled under federal and Florida law that all similarly situated persons are equal before the law. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707 (Fla.1981); Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1978). Moreover, without exception, all statutory classifications that treat one person or group differently than others must appear to be based at a minimum on a rational distinction having a just…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1976)
- Carmelos Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1978)
- Davis v. Fla. Power Co., 64 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1912)
- McEVER v. State, 352 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)