Felony murder

The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder. This applies even if one does not personally or directly cause the person's death. According to most commentators, the common law rule dates to the twelfth century and took its modern form in the eighteenth century, at which time it was adopted by most of the United States. Because the rule requires no intent to kill, or even to do bodily harm, it has been criticized as unjust, and it was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1957. It remains statutory law under the Federal Government of the United States and under most of the several states, as well as in some other common-law jurisdictions. A lawyer's definition of the felony murder rule -- site checked March 13, 2006

For example, a getaway driver for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed someone in the process of the robbery, even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing. In jurisdictions that also have the death penalty, felony murder usually qualifies as a capital crime; however, there are independent constitutional limitations on the imposition of the death penalty on those guilty of felony murder.

=History of the rule=

Origin

The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended. Thus, in a classic example, a poacher shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the mens rea of the poaching is transferred to the actus reus of the killing. Lawteacher.net explanation of transferred intent

Some commentators regard this as a legal fiction whereby the law pretends that the person who intended one wrongful act, also intends all the consequences of that act, however unforseen. Others regard it as an example of strict liability, whereby a person who chooses to commit a crime is considered absolutely responsible for all the possible consequences of that action. Lord Mustill regards the historical rule as a convergence of these views.Lord Mustill's exposition to the House of Lords, 1994

=Description= However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above summary implies. In reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To "qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder. Furthermore, the merger doctrine excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge. For example, nearly all murders involve some type of assault, but so do many cases of manslaughter. To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate a distinction carefully set by the legislature; however, merger may not apply when an assault against one person results in the death of another^*.

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many jurisdictions in the United States explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviant sexual intercourse, arson, burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape. Federal law specifies additional crimes, including terrorism and carjacking.

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the felony and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.

=Examples=

Illustrative example

The following example employs general principles of law in the United States for the purpose of illustration.

The Doe Gang attempts to rob a bank. John, Jane and Richard Doe will do the actual robbery. Mary Doe will act as lookout, and Joe Schmoe waits around the corner with the getaway vehicle. Mike Meek is a bank employee who is to make sure the alarm is not sounded. The robbery is a violation of both federal and state law, and can separately be prosecuted under each without incurring double jeopardy. Both jurisdictions employ the felony murder rule: for purposes of this example, we assume that federal law employs the proximate cause theory and state law the agency theory.

During the course of the robbery, the Bank Manager suffers an aortic dissection and dies almost instantly. A teller hits the silent alarm in the confusion. The police arrive, and Mary surrenders promptly. When the police enter the bank, John, Jane and Richard open fire: Jane kills an officer while Richard's wild shot kills John. Joe Schmoe hears the shots and flees. He does not see a child playing in front of the car, and accidentally kills her. Later, officers' bullets kill Richard and the teller behind him. The result of all this carnage is as follows:

Mary is probably not guilty of any felony murder, and will probably not be charged in any event, because she surrendered to authorities before any violence.
The manager's death is almost certainly not felony murder, because the connection to the robbery is too remote.
The officer's death is both first-degree murder for Jane, and felony murder for Joe and Mike, under both federal and state law. Jane may be charged with felony murder as a tactical matter if the ballistics are inconclusive.
John's death is felony murder for all three under federal law and probably state law. Some states might not allow it because he was a participant in the crime.
The teller's death is felony murder for all three survivors under federal, but not state law, because they were killed by a non-participant. Note that even though Joe had ceased to participate in the robbery at this point, his flight counts as a continuous transaction, so the rule continues to apply.
Richard's death is felony murder under federal, but not state law, for the same reasons. In practice, many prosecutors are reluctant to make the charge when an accomplice is killed by police.
The child's death is felony murder for all three in both federal and state court. Again, the fact that Joe was trying to flee does not mitigate the crime.
Jane is subject to the death penalty, even if the ballistics are inconclusive, because she attempted and intended to kill.
Joe is subject to the death penalty because he killed, albeit accidentally.
Mike escapes the death penalty, because he neither killed nor intended to kill.

Actual case

Tison v. Ariz., 481 U.S. 137 (1987)

Even someone who did not kill, attempt to kill or intend to kill can be executed if it is shown that he was a "major participant" in the murder and showed "extreme indifference to human life." For example, three brothers who broke their father out of prison and went on a crime spree killed a family traveling along a highway. They did so by flagging down their car under the pretense of being distressed motorists, then leading them out into the desert and shooting them execution-style. The father was the one who actually pulled the trigger, but the brothers were present at the killings and could have stopped them. A statewide police manhunt ensured; the father and brothers parted ways, and the father and one of the brothers died of exposure in the desert. The two remaining brothers were later apprehended, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that imposing the death penalty on them did not violate the Constitution.

=Citations=

Notes

References

Links

Criminal law