• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Causal Limitations
Case:
 
 People v. Hickman
, 297 N.E.2d 582 (1973) [pp. 427-429] Facts: Δs committed a burglary, and as they were escaping, the police confronted them. Δ's ran away, and police were chasing them. By mistake, one of the officers shot another officer, thinking it was one of the perpetrators, because he had a gun and didn’t stop when the officer yelled at him to stop. Δs convicted of murder.
o
Statute says: "A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which causes the death … He is attempting or committing a forcible felony."
•
Δ argued that this requires that the Δs would have to have killed the victim.
o
Statute also says, "It is immaterial whether the killing in such a case is intentional or accidental, or iscommitted by a confederate without the connivance of the Δ or even by a 3rd person trying to prevent the commission of the felony." Holding:
o
Court holds that a Δ & co-conspirators can be held responsible for a killing of an innocent 3rd partyduring the commission of a forcible felony even though the killing was not actually done by a personacting in concert with the Δ or his co-conspirators (under the felony-murder doctrine).
•
 People v. Payne
- robbery of home of 2 brothers. One of the brothers and on of the robbers both shoot, and the other brother dies. Couldn’t be determined whose gun killed him, but Courtaffirms Δ's murder conviction (it is reasonable that death may occur in the commission of robbery).
o
Court also notes that the felony-murder doctrine does not apply against a surviving felon when a co-felon is killed during the commission of a forcible felony. Court says it's not because the dead felonassumed the risk & consented to his own death, but rather that he assisted in setting into motion thechain of events which was the proximate cause of his death, and there is no redress for this victim.
•
 People v. Morris
- Armed robbery, gunfire erupts, and a co-felon is killed. Δ charged withmurder under felony-murder rule, but court says it doesn’t apply when the victim was a co-felon.
o
Uses a "proximate cause" theory of felony murder. 
Class Notes
 
•
Person shot is a cop; person doing the shooting is another police officer. Δ saying not me; I never shotanyone. Δ had nothing to do with this
•
Why foreseeable that ppl may get killed? - foreseeable that police may arrive at the scene, bullets fly &someone gets it.
•
Court relies on the limitation - but not much of a limitation
o
When you commit a felony, it's foreseeable that a victim may fight back, and there'll be violence;that police may shoot to stop you & kill someone else.
o
Proximate cause not much of a limitation - because always foreseeable that this may happenduring a burglary
•
Court says this would be diff if it wasn’t a cop who had died (because he's innocent, and this was anunlawful killing - someone has to be responsible for an unlawful killing). But if it was a felon who diesat the hands of the cop, lawful killing, and no need to hold someone responsible.
•
One limitation to felony murder rule - that dead person be an innocent, not a co-felon
o
Co-felon - the death is justified. In defense; justified, so no murder.
 _______________________________ 
 
Notes
: [p. 429-432]
 
 
•
More restrictive view of the felony-murder doctrine (California)
o
 People v. Washington
(CA, 1965) - Δ & co-felon rob and gas station, and the gas station's owner shoots & kills the co-felon who had pointed a gun at him.
•
The felony-murder doctrine ascribes male aforethought to the felon who kills in the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony. When a killing is not committed by arobber or accomplice, but by his victim, malice aforethought is not attributable to therobber, because the killing wasn’t committed by him.
•
 Not enough that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk which would make therobbery the proximate cause of the killing. The statute requires that the felon or accomplice commit the killing (like
 Hickman
), and this court won't broaden themeaning of it.
•
The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly liable for the killings they commit. This purpose isnot served by punishing them for killings committed by their victims.
•
Court disagrees that another purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the commission of robberies. Court notes that it wouldn’t be fair to hold a felon liable for an act caused by a3rd party - because it wouldn’t be based on the felons own conduct, but on the conduct bythe 3rd parties, which they can't control.
Class Notes
•
Contrary to court's analysis in
 Hickman
•
What's the rule here? - who caused the death? Must be the participants in the felony.
o
As to be the immediate cause of the killing
•
Why does this court find this so important?
o
The felony-murder doctrine is a form of aiding & abetting liability. There's nothing to ascribe tothe Δ. If he or his agent doesn’t do it, the 3rd party that commits the killing (victim, bystander, police) is not acting in concert with the Δ, so you can't connect the Δ to that death. You can'tfairly contribute their conduct back to the Δ.
o
Utilitarian justification - not trying to deter the felony itself, trying to deter the felony from beingdangerously committed. Commit the felony in a safe way so that ppl don’t die. If the purpose of to make sure felons commit felony in a safe way so that ppl don’t get hurt, we shouldn’t applythe rule when its someone else who does the killing - that has nothing to do with the Δ. We're notgoing to deter them from committing the felonies dangerously by punishing them when they'renot the ones who did it.
•
Criticism to this argument - if felons know they're going to be held responsible even if killing done by 3rd person, they're going to commit their felonies in a way that won't provoke those types of responses. Ex: More likely for clerk to pull out gun, if the felonseems dangerous.
•
Felony murder doctrine will not apply if person who pulls the trigger is not a felon
•
Although
Washington
forbade the use of the felony-murder rule in CA when the felon didn’t commit it,the court did not bar other means of imposing murder liability on felons who may indirectly cause death(initiating gun battles), noting that such felons may be guilty of "abandoned and malignant heart"murder.
o
Taylor v. Superior Court 
(1970) - co-felon killed by shopkeeper after co-felon provoked gunfire.Court held that the felons were provocative of lethal resistance, and the 2 men had initiated thegun battle wit conscious disregard for human life and with natural consequences dangerous tolife."
•
Agency limitation - government couldn’t rely on felony-murder. But court foundsufficient evidence for abandoned & malignant heart murder. They created a situation thatshowed a conscious disregard for human life. Waiving guns around - predictable that
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...