Enmund v. Florida

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Criminal Law

458 U.S. 782 (1982)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawfelony murderdeath penaltyEighth Amendmentcruel and unusual punishmentproportionalityaccomplice liabilitycapital punishment

Facts

The Kerseys were robbed and fatally shot at their farmhouse by Sampson Armstrong, and perhaps Jeanette Armstrong, after the couple resisted the robbery. The Florida Supreme Court found there was no direct evidence that Enmund was at the back door during the shootings and that the evidence supported only the inference that he was the person in the car parked near the scene, waiting to help the robbers escape. Under the jury instructions and Florida law, that participation was enough to make him a principal to first-degree felony murder. The death sentence was affirmed even though, as the case came to the Supreme Court, there was no finding that Enmund killed, attempted to kill, or intended that the victims be killed.

Issue

Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit the State to impose the death penalty on a defendant who aided and abetted a robbery during which others committed murder, when the defendant himself did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force be used.

Rule

The Eighth Amendment forbids imposing the death penalty on a defendant who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others, but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force be employed. Capital punishment must be proportioned to the defendant's own culpability and personal responsibility.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Devin Cole agreed to wait in a car while two friends robbed a neighborhood check-cashing store. During the robbery, one friend unexpectedly shot the clerk after the clerk reached for an alarm, and there is no evidence Devin wanted anyone killed or expected a gun to be used lethally.

If Oklahoma convicts Devin of felony murder based on his role in the robbery, may the State constitutionally sentence him to death on these facts?

Explanation. The majority held that capital punishment is disproportionate for a felony-murder accomplice whose own culpability is limited to participation in the underlying felony and who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force be employed. A felony-murder conviction may stand, but the death penalty may not constitutionally be imposed on these facts.