DOCSLIB.ORG

Extends Felony Murder Doctrine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extends Felony Murder Doctrine Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 5 Number 3 Spring 1971 pp.676-682 Spring 1971 Criminal Law–California's "Vicarious Murder Theory" Extends Felony Murder Doctrine Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Criminal Law–California's "Vicarious Murder Theory" Extends Felony Murder Doctrine, 5 Val. U. L. Rev. 676 (1971). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol5/iss3/11 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. et al.: Criminal Law–California's "Vicarious Murder Theory" Extends Felon CASE COMMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-CRIAIINAL LAW: Warrantless Electronic Sur- veillance of Dissident Domestic Organizations under the National Security Exception. INTRODUCTION In United States v. Sinclair,' the defendants were indicted on charges of conspiring to bomb an office of the Central Intelligence Agency located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Following the indictment, defense counsel filed a pretrial motion for disclosure of all records, logs and memoranda obtained from any electronic surveillance directed at the defendants pursuant to Alderman v. United States.2 The motion further requested an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any evidence upon which the indictment was based or which the Government intended to introduce at trial was tainted by such a surveillance.3 The Supreme Court ruled in Alderman that the Government must disclose to the defendant all conversations to which he was a party or that occurred on his premises that were overheard by means of any illegal electronic surveillance." Therefore, a ruling on the legality of the surveillance was necessary to determine what disposition should be made of Sinclair's motion. The issue before the court was whether the Attorney General, as 1. Criminal No. 44375 (E.D. Mich., Jan. 25, 1971). 2. 394 U.S. 165 (1969). 3. Weeks tv. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), gave birth to the exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission in a federal court of any evidence gained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 285 (1920), expanded the exclusionary rule to prevent the admission of the fruits of such illegally acquired evidence. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), applied the expanded exclusionary rule to illegally overheard oral communications ruling for the first time that the interception of oral communications constitutes a "search and seizure" within the fourth amendment. The question to be determined in an evidentiary hearing for taint is "whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means suf- ficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). 4. For a discussion of the constitutionality of the practice of wiretapping and electronic surveillance see Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 312 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting) ; Osborn v. United States, 384 U.S. 323, 349 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting) ; Clark, Wiretapping and the Constitution, 5 CALIF. WESTmxR L. REV. 1 (1968) ; Spritzer, Electronic Surveillance By Leave of the Magistrate: The Case in Opposition, 118 U. PA. L. REV. 169 (1969) ; Note, Eavesdropping and the Constitution: A Reappraisal of the Fourth Amendment Framework, 50 MINN. L. REv. 378 (1965). Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1971 Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 [1971], Art. 11 652 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 5 an agent of the President, may authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on dissident domestic organizations' under the guise of protecting the "national security."'7 Ifthe Attorney General was deemed to possess this delegated power, then the eavesdropping would have been legal and disclosure of the information to the defendant would not have been required.' The ensuing arguments submitted by the Government for such warrantless eavesdropping have also been employed in two other recent cases.' It is asserted by the Government that the President, as Chief Executive, has the duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitu- tion." In accordance with that duty, he possesses the inherent con- stitutional power to authorize warrantless eavesdropping in cases in- volving the national security and to determine unilaterally whether action in a given situation would be in the interest of national security. This power is evidenced by three presidential memorandums and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.10 The Government further contends that pursuant to the President's duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," it is "hardly unreason- able" for him to authorize eavesdropping without a warrant in situations involving groups considered to be threats to the existence of the Govern- ment.1 The court in Sinclair, unable to concur with the Government's reasoning, stated: An idea which seems to permeate much of the Government's argument is that dissident domestic organizations are akin 5. Unless otherwise indicated, "eavesdropping" will include wiretapping and bugging for the purposes of this comment. 6. The defendants in Sinclair are leaders of the White Panther Party having headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. The constitutionality of warrantless eavesdropping in national security cases has not been decided by the Supreme Court. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 358 n.23 (1967). For extended discussion of this issue see Schwartz, The Legitimation of Electronic Eavesdropping: The Politics of "Law and Order," 67 MicH. L. Rv. 455 (1968) ; Theoharis, The "National Security" Justification for Electronic Eaves- dropping: An Elusive Exception, 14 WAYNE L. REv. 749 (1968); Note, Eavesdropping at the Government's Discretion-First Amendment Implications of the National Security Eavesdropping Power, 56 CORNmL L.Q. 161 (1970); Comment, Privacy and Political Freedom: Application of the Fourth Amendment to National Security In- vestigations, 17 U.C.L.A. L. REv. 1205 (1970). 8. Giordano v. United States. 394 U.S. 310 (1968) (White, J., concurring). 9. United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424 (C.D. Cal. 1971); United States v. Dillinger, Criminal No. CR 180 (N.D. Ill.,Feb. 20, 1970). This case is better known as the "Chicago Conspiracy Trial." 10. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, § 802, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2510-20 (1970). 11. The fourth amendment states in part: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol5/iss3/11 et al.: Criminal Law–California's "Vicarious Murder Theory" Extends Felon 19711 CASE COMMENTS to an unfriendly foreign power and must be dealt with in the same fashion. There is great danger in an argument of this nature for it strikes at the very constitutional privileges and immunities that are inherent in United States citizenship. It is to be remembered that in our democracy all men are to receive equal justice regardless of their political beliefs or per- suasions. The executive branch of our government cannot be given the power or the opportunity to investigate and prosecute criminal violations under two different standards simply because certain accused persons espouse views which are inconsistent with our present form of government. 2 The court adopted the decision of United States v. Smith" which held that "in wholly domestic situations there is no national security exemption from the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." The defense counsel's motion for disclosure and evidentiary hearing was granted. 4 The purpose of this comment is to examine the legitimacy of the Government's attempt to combine dissident domestic groups with hostile foreign elements under the heading of "national security." A considera- tion of the ramifications of the Sinclair decision and of the present inability of the courts and citizenry to deter illegal eavesdropping will also be included. THE "NATIONAL SECURITY" DISCREPANCY The memorandums of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson imply the existence of presidential powers to act in the interest of "nation- al security." The confusion arises in an endeavor to characterize those situations which are to be embodied within that category. President Roosevelt's memorandum" to the Attorney General was issued in response to the ominous threat to national security posed by the Axis powers and their active supporters. In consideration of the increasing number of " 'fifth columns' [being formed] in other countries ...in preparation for sabotage," the President authorized the Attorney General to utilize "listening devices" to investigate "persons suspected The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... 12. United States v. Sinclair, Criminal No. 44375 (E.D. Mich., Jan. 25, 1971). 13. 321 F. Supp. 424 (C.D. Cal. 1971). 14. Appeal docketed, No. -, 6th Cir., Feb. 15, 1971. 15. Memorandum from President Roosevelt to Attorney General Jackson, May 21, 1940, on file in the Truman Library, Stephen Speingarn Papers; United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recent Cases
    Volume 59 Issue 2 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 59, 1954-1955 1-1-1955 Recent Cases Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation Recent Cases, 59 DICK. L. REV. 169 (1955). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol59/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DICKINSON LAW REVIEW RECENT CASES CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - INSANITY DEFENSE - DEFINITION OF INSANITY - A MATTER OF FACT FOR JURY DETERMINATION Until July, 1954, the federal courts of the District of Columbia had used both the M'Naughten test' and the "irresistible impulse" test 2 in order to determine vhether a defendant was sane enough to be held responsible for his crimes. Under the M'Naughten test it was required that the defendant, in order to be found insane, must be under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind and as a result does not know the nature and quality of the criminal act or does not know that the act was wrong.' This has become known as the "right and wrong test". It was not until 1929 that the "irresistible impulse" test was adopted in Smith v. United States. 4 Here it was required that the defendant be impelled to do the act as a result of an irresistible impulse which was caused by a diseased mind which left the defendant powerless to resist the impulse.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect
    The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect Daniel Ganz 21090905 UC Berkeley, Spring 2012 Legal Studies Honors Thesis Supervised by Professor Richard Perry Ganz 1 I. Abstract Most US states have a felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge felons with murder for any death that occurs during and because of the commission of the felony. This allows the felon to be convicted with murder without requiring the prosecution to prove the mens rea that would otherwise be necessary for a murder conviction. Much of the legal scholarship indicates that the purpose of the felony murder rule is to deter felonies and to make felons limit their use of violence while they're committing the felony by making the felon internalize more fully the negative consequences of their actions. It's unclear whether legislatures that adopt felony murder rules are more concerned with deterring criminal behavior or making criminals less violent when committing felonies. We analyze judicial decisions to infer what judges believed were the intentions of the legislatures that adopted felony murder statutes. We also use regression analysis to determine whether felony murder statutes are correlated with lower crime rates or lower rates of the average number of deaths that occur during felonies. We do this both by modeling felony rates and rates of felony- related deaths as a function of whether a state has a felony murder rule, and by determining how felony rates and rates of felony-related deaths change when a state adopts or abolishes a felony murder rule. Our results indicate that the felony murder rule does not have a significant effect on crime rates or crime-related death rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejoining Moral Culpability with Criminal Liability: Reconsideration of the Felony Murder Doctrine for the Current Time William Bald
    Journal of Legislation Volume 44 | Issue 2 Article 4 4-20-2018 Rejoining Moral Culpability with Criminal Liability: Reconsideration of the Felony Murder Doctrine for the Current Time William Bald Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation William Bald, Rejoining Moral Culpability with Criminal Liability: Reconsideration of the Felony Murder Doctrine for the Current Time, 44 J. Legis. 239 (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol44/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REJOINING MORAL CULPABILITY WITH CRIMINAL LIABILITY: RECONSIDERATION OF THE FELONY MURDER DOCTRINE FOR THE CURRENT TIME William Bald† INTRODUCTION In 2014, Kurese Bell, a young man from the San Diego area, was arrested after committing two armed robberies. Bell and his accomplice, Marlon Thomas, robbed a smoke shop and a marijuana dispensary, with both robberies occurring within four days of each other. During the second robbery, the two men exchanged gunfire with a security guard, who had newly been hired to keep watch over the dispensary. The guard was hit in the fray, but not before he was able to shoot and kill Thomas. Bell was charged and convicted of first-degree murder under California’s felony murder rule,1 even though he did not fire the bullet that killed his accomplice.2 Bell was later sentenced to sixty-five years to life in prison, plus thirty-five years to run concurrently.3 The felony murder rule attempts to hold criminals such as Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • FELON's RESPONSIBILITY for the LETHAL ACTS of OTHERS Norval Morris T
    [Vol. 105 THE FELON'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LETHAL ACTS OF OTHERS Norval Morris t Far from shrinking under protracted criticism, the felony-murder rule has recently demonstrated a tendency to expand. In particular, courts in Pennsylvania and California have greatly extended the scope of this doctrine. Though their purpose of deterring the commission of certain felonies is commendable, the means selected appears to be socially unwise and is based on reasoning not free from substantial analytic and historical errors. Throughout the Anglo-American system of criminal justice, those who engage in certain felonies and kill the subject of their felonious designs, or those who kill while forcibly resisting lawful arrest, may be convicted of murder. Where, however, death is caused by the retaliatory or defensive action of a victim of an intended felony, or by a police officer or other person assisting him, the criminal responsibility of the felon for that death is less clear. In such circumstances an innocent bystander, a policeman or one of the felons may be killed by an act of justified resistance to the felony or by an act intended to prevent the criminal's escape. Are the felons, by virtue of their felony, murderers? Likewise, if during the course of a felony one of the felons from extraneous motives kills one of his fellow conspirators, the criminal liability of the surviving conspirators, other than the actual killer, is uncertain. Decisions in Pennsylvania and California have held the surviving felons guilty of murder in the first degree in all the above situations. It is proposed to review these cases, to search out the suggested basis of liability, and to urge the repudiation of this extension of the felony- murder rule.
    [Show full text]
  • The Felony-Murder Rule: in Search of a Viable Doctrine
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 23 Number 2 Volume 23, Spring 1978, Number 2 Article 8 The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of A Viable Doctrine Jeanne Hall Seibold Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Criminal Law Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FELONY-MURDER RULE: IN SEARCH OF A VIABLE DOCTRINE* INTRODUCTION When a homicide has occurred during the perpetration of a felony, the felony-murder doctrine recognizes the intent to commit the underlying felony as a substitute for the mens rea normally required to support a murder conviction.' As a result of widespread recognition of the harshness * This article is a student work prepared by Jeanne Hall Seibold, a member of the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. Under the felony-murder doctrine, the mens rea is established by proof of intent to commit the underlying felony, on a theory of constructive intent. When first applied in England, "constructive malice" was applied to all killing resulting from the commission of any unlaw- ful act. E. COKE, THIRD INSTITUTE 56 (6th ed. 1680). Foster dictated that the unlawful act must be a felony. M. FOSTER, CROWN LAW 258 (2d ed. 1791). See 4 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 192-93 [hereinafter cited as BLACKSTONE], in which the author restated the rule: [W]hen an involuntary killing happens in consequence of an unlawful act, it will be either murder or manslaughter .
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Berry
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 100,512 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GREGORY L. BERRY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The standard of review governing denial of a motion to dismiss depends on the ground on which dismissal was sought. When insufficient evidence is argued, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational factfinder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Lesser included offense jury instructions are governed by K.S.A. 22-3414(3). It directs that instructions must be given when there is some evidence that would reasonably justify a conviction of some lesser included crime. 3. When a party claims K.S.A. 22-3414(3) requires giving an instruction on a lesser included crime, the analysis focuses on the evidence supporting the lesser offense. 1 4. The judicially created felony-murder instruction rule requires lesser included offense instructions only when evidence of the underlying felony is weak, inconclusive, or conflicting. The analysis focuses on the evidence supporting the underlying felony and not the evidence supporting lesser offenses. 5. K.S.A. 22-3414(3) does not exclude felony murder from its mandate and makes no exception for the felony-murder instruction rule regarding lesser included offense instructions. 6. After reviewing the felony-murder instruction rule's historical development, we conclude its use should cease. K.S.A. 22-3414(3) should be applicable to felony murder. Instructions on the lesser degrees of homicide are proper in felony-murder cases when there is some evidence reasonably justifying a conviction of some lesser included crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
    [Show full text]
  • Felony Murder and the Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence of Death Richard A
    Boston College Law Review Volume 31 Article 2 Issue 5 Number 5 9-1-1990 Felony Murder and the Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence of Death Richard A. Rosen Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Rosen, Felony Murder and the Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence of Death, 31 B.C.L. Rev. 1103 (1990), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol31/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FELONY MURDER AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE OF DEATHt RicHARD A. ROSEN * I. INTRODUCTION 1104 IL THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT— RATIONALIZING DEATH 1106 III. FELONY MURDER IN THE AGE OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LAW 1113 A. The Felony Murder Rule and the Quest for Appropriateness 1115 B. The Racial Impact of Felony Murder 1117 IV. FELONY MURDER AS A NARROWING DEVICE—ILLUSION AND REALITY 1120 A. The Constitutional Requirement for Narrowing the Class 1121 B. The Inadequacy of Felony Murder as a Narrowing Device 1124 C. Pure Felony Murder Narrowing States 1125 D. Reckless Felony Murder as a Narrowing Device 1129 E. Intentional Felony Murder as a Narrowing Device 1130 F. The Broad Pecuniary Gain. Narrowing Device - 1131 G. Court Treatment of the Felony Murder Narrowing Device 1134 V. FELONY MURDER ACCOMPLICES AND A BRIGHT LINE RULE OF DISPROPORTIONALITY 1137 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, and the Palsgraf Doctrine in the Rc Iminal Law Wilfred J
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 2 Fall 9-1-1959 Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The rC iminal Law Wilfred J. Ritz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilfred J. Ritz, Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The Criminal Law, 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 169 (1959), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol16/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1959] PALSGRAF AND CRIMES FELONY MURDER, TRANSFERRED INTENT, AND THE PALSGRAF DOCTRINE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW WILFRED J. RITz* Transferred intent is a doctrine common to both tort and criminal law, but it is a fiction-tolerated without enthusiasm.' In torts the doctrine has lost favor, being replaced by the rule expressed by Car- dozo, C. J., in the well-known case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.2 In criminal law, even though "there is some difficulty in rationalizing"3 transferred intent, the doctrine is still accepted as the basis for im- posing criminal liability on a defendant whose victim is a different person from the one he intended should suffer from his criminal act. In criminal law the doctrine of transferred intent had a com- mon origin with the felony murder rule, but in the course of time, two separate, and supposedly distinct, rules developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads Nelson E
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 3 Issue 3 March 1985 Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads Nelson E. Roth Scott E. Sundby Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nelson E. Roth and Scott E. Sundby, Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads , 70 Cornell L. Rev. 446 (1985) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FELONY-MURDER RULE: A DOCTRINE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS Nelson E. Roth* and Scott E. Sundby** INTRODUCTION Few legal doctrines have been as maligned and yet have shown as great a resiliency as the felony-murder rule. Criticism of the rule constitutes a lexicon of everything that scholars and jurists can find wrong with a legal doctrine: it has been described as "astonishing" and "monstrous,"' an unsupportable "legal fiction," 2 "an unsightly wart on the skin of the criminal law,"'3 and as an "anachronistic rem- nant" that has " 'no logical or practical basis for existence in mod- ern law.' "4 Perhaps the most that can be said for the rule is that it provides commentators with an extreme example that makes it easy to illustrate the injustice of various legal propositions. 5 Despite the widespread criticism, the felony-murder rule per- sists in the vast majority of states.
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL LAW October 2007 Question 2
    FYLSX CRIMINAL LAW October 2007 Question 2 Twelve-year-old Al was throwing rocks against a tree alongside the road to amuse himself while waiting for his school bus. One of the rocks thrown by Al missed the tree and shattered the windshield of an approaching car driven by Biil. Bill, who had just left a bank he had robbed, was driving carefully and below the speed limit to avoid attracting the attention of the police. When the windshield shattered, Bill swerved, causing the car to run off the road. The car struck and killed Vic, a boy who had also been waiting for the school bus. Chuck and Dave, Vic's brothers, decided that the accident had been Al's fault and, together, carefully planned to avenge Vic's death. They pooled their money and bought a shotgun, planning to use it to shoot Al. When the time came to go to looking for Al, however, Chuck told Dave, "l'm not going. lf you want to do it, you're on your own." Dave carried out the plan, shooting and killing Al After killing Al, Dave removed Al's watch and kept it for himself. 1. Did Al commit any crime relating to the death of Vic? Discuss. 2. Could Bill be found guilty of any crime relating to the death of Vic? Discuss. 3. Did either Chuck or Dave, or both, commit: a. Conspiracy to murder Al? Discuss. b. Murder of Al? Discuss. c. Theft of Al's watch? Discuss. 16 Answer A to Question 2 '1 .
    [Show full text]
  • AB 2195: Felony Murder Rule - Increasing the Transparency of Convictions and Sentencing
    AB 2195: Felony Murder Rule - Increasing the Transparency of Convictions and Sentencing Summary: underlying felony. All participants in that crime can, and most likely will, be held equally culpable. AB 2195 requires the California Department of This means that even individuals who possessed no Justice (DOJ), in consultation with the California weapon, did no harm, and did not intend to hurt Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation anyone, can still be sentenced to death or LWOP. (CDCR) to collect data on the number of persons currently convicted of and sentenced for first degree Whereas the felony murder rule exists to deter and second degree murder under the felony murder people from killing others during the commission of rule. This bill also requires DOJ to disaggregate the a felony and to deter people from committing the data by county and continue to update the data felony in the first place, it is unclear how effective it annually, posting it to the department’s website in a is as a deterrent and can be argued that it is unjust to prominent place. hold one person liable for the unforeseen consequences of another person’s actions. Background: Need for legislation: The felony murder rule states that any death which results from the commission or attempted According to The Sentencing Project, the United commission of certain crimes such as burglary, States is the world’s leader in incarceration with 2.2 arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, is considered million people in our nation’s prisons and jails. We murder of the first degree. First degree murder is have an incarceration rate which far exceeds all any intentional murder with malice aforethought other developed and underdeveloped countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations on the Applicability of the Felony-Murder Rule in California, 22 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 22 | Issue 5 Article 9 1-1971 Limitations on the Applicability of the Felony- Murder Rule in California Joan Graham Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joan Graham, Limitations on the Applicability of the Felony-Murder Rule in California, 22 Hastings L.J. 1327 (1971). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol22/iss5/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FELONY-MURDER RULE IN CALIFORNIA The term felony-murder is a shorthand phrase which signifies that malice will be imputed to a person who, while engaged in the perpetra- tion of certain dangerous felonies, causes the death of another person. Malice aforethought, which Professor Perkins defines as "an unjustifi- able, unexcusable and unmitigated man-endangering-state of mind"1 is conclusively presumed by the defendant's participation in the under- lying felony. This presumed malice-given that a causal relation exists between the felony and the death-is sufficient to justify a conviction of first degree murder. It is no defense that the killing was accidental or negligent; malice is presumed despite the unintentional nature of the death. At early common law all felonies were within the purview of this rule. Blackstone stated this broad doctrine quite simply- "And if one intends to do another felony, and undesignedly kills a man, this is also murder." 2 Blackstone's statement of the rule was subsequently modi- fied by the case law.
    [Show full text]