• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
The Independent Felonious Purpose Limitation
Case:
 
State v. Shock 
, 68 Mo. 552 (1878) [pp. 442-446, n. 2] Facts: Δ beat a child pretty badly, and the child died. Issue is whether the felony-murder doctrine should apply. Holding: No felony murder. At CL a homicide committed in the willful and malicious infliction of great bodilyharm was murder, though death was not intended; but this wasn’t because such infliction of great bodily harmwas in itself a felony, in the perpetration of which the homicide was committed, but because such infliction of great bodily harm was an act
malum in se
, and the part is held liable for the harm. But such a homicide, wheredeath wasn’t intended, is not a willful deliberate and premeditated killing, and not murder committed during or in furtherance of a felony, so not murder in 1st degree. A simple unintentional killing usually classed as murder in the 2nd - but here it was deliberate and intentional. Court concludes that here the jury could find murder in1st on the theory of a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. Notes:
•
The merger doctrine comes into play when statutes don’t have just enumerated predicate felonies, butsays something like dangerous felonies. Basically - the rule is that assault merges with murder. 
Class Notes
 
•
Merger Doctrine - its own limitation on the felony murder rule
o
 Not an exception to the felony murder - rather it goes along with it. Universal concept.
•
The way the murder statute worked back then
o
Murder = everything that was murder at CL
o
Then it said, 1st degree murder were those that were premeditated, or committed in perpetrationof either an enumerated or other felony
•
Problem with that - the jury instruction told the jury that they can convict the Δ of 1stdegree murder if they found he caused the death of the victim with the intention to causegreat bodily injury
What's wrong with this instruction? – 
•
Murder at CL - need malice - prove malice by intent to kill or intent tocommit serious bodily injury, or abandoned & malignant heart, or felonymurder.
•
At CL - prosecution could prove either intent to kill or intent to dogreat bodily harm
•
Problem is that it's only 1st degree murder (by the statute) if premeditatedor felony murder 
•
The instruction to the jury said you can convict of 1st degree if hedid with intent to do great bodily harm. Statute doesn’t say you cando this.
•
So, then the State tries to argue - this is felony murder 
o
Predicate felony is the assault with intent to commit great bodily harm (that was what establishedthe jury instruction).
•
Problem - the predicate felony necessarily merges with the homicidal act
•
Can't rely on any felony as predicate
o
You can take any homicidal act (manslaughter) and make it murder 
•
Can't allow government to say they're guilty of committing involuntary manslaughter,and in the course of committing involuntary manslaughter (the felony), because of the
of 00

Leave a Comment

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