Felony Murder Rule

[mightymoose]

Names released of five teens charged with murder after accomplice fatally shot during attempted car theft

One of the few things my California legislature has done that I actually agree with is modifying the felony murder rule to apply only to a suspect actually engaged in the murder, not just the associated crime.
These teens were apparently stupid thugs, but sticking them with murder charges seems excessive to me when it was the homeowner who actually did the killing. The one suspect who may have deserved an enhanced sentence is already dead.
Convict them for the crimes they committed, not for the crimes they didn't.
Maybe they will get lucky and avoid the murder conviction in exchange for guilty pleas on the burglary and carjacking.

 

[adjusterjack]

One of the few things my California legislature has done that I actually agree with is modifying the felony murder rule to apply only to a suspect actually engaged in the murder, not just the associated crime.

No surprise there. California is a very weird state.

These teens were apparently stupid thugs, but sticking them with murder charges seems excessive to me when it was the homeowner who actually did the killing.

I disagree.

Their commission of a crime is what got the 14 year old killed.

I am in total support of the felony murder rule, as is.

 

[flyingron]

Yeah, but he was one of the perpetrators of the crime. Usually, it's applied to when someone dies as a result of a normally non-lethal crime OTHER than the people committing the crime.

Still, I've got no problem with its application here.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

It's extremely difficult to apply a general rule that fits all circumstances perfectly. And then there are the principles and theory for why we have criminal law, e.g. retribution and rehabilitation. Are the goals served in this case? The former doesn't seem to apply as to the victim but can with regard to society by being a participant which enabled the execution of this felony crime. Perhaps a lesser charge may be warranted but I'm not sure about removing the felony murder rule entirely. I have thoughts about the higher level of culpability potentially being a deterrent among others.

 

[mightymoose]

Well even California didn't remove it entirely. They just fine tuned it to apply to those who actually engaged or assisted with the actual murder. It's application is more fair that way. The change only kicked in within the last year so time will tell how it works out.
It just makes no sense to me to charge a person with murder who had no intent to commit murder and was not involved except for being present for a different crime.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Well even California didn't remove it entirely. They just fine tuned it to apply to those who actually engaged or assisted with the actual murder. It's application is more fair that way. The change only kicked in within the last year so time will tell how it works out. It just makes no sense to me to charge a person with murder who had no intent to commit murder and was not involved except for being present for a different crime.

Perhaps the title is misleading. The suspect is charged with another felony crime in the event someone was murdered in the commission of a felony crime. By definition it's the recognition of indirect responsibility for the murder of another person by for knowingly placing them in harm's way for murder to to potentially and foreseeably occur.

If you're part of a group committing armed robbery, you know and can reasonably foresee that your assistance in facilitating such an enterprise creates a reasonable likelihood that someone may be murdered in its execution. You may not have the gun but, by watching the door and allowing others who do to carry out the plan, you have enabled the perpetrators to commit the crime and any reasonably foreseeable turn of events. Hence you're responsible for a 'felony murder' crime, which is a lesser offense, but you're still responsible in some way for the fact that a person lost their life. It becomes a little more of a stretch when it is an accomplice but that is the way I perceive it.

 

[army judge]

It just makes no sense to me to charge a person with murder who had no intent to commit murder and was not involved except for being present for a different crime.

You have outlined the reason MOST people objections regarding the "felony murder rule".

Those objections have been litigated for decades to no avail, as the "felony murder rule" is still standing.

Some states, yours included, have chipped away at the FMR.

Once one grasps the intent/purpose of the law, the FMR makes far more legal sense than those who quibble about it's alleged inefficacy.

In my time as a military prosecutor (and my days as an AUSA and state prosecutor), I've been able to charge all involved in various criminal endeavors by RICO or other conspiracy related statutes.

In my view, the FMR does provide a deterrent to some people avoiding criminal activity.