The purpose of the felony

Table of Forms

Authoritative Dictionary

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Felony-Murder Rule-Purpose			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

News

Entertainment

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal-Home
A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Felony-Murder Rule-Purpose
(People v. Cavitt & Williams)

The Purpose of The Felony-Murder Rule
(People v. Cavitt & Williams)

The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter those who commit the enumerated felonies from killing by holding them strictly responsible for any killing committed by a cofelon, whether intentional, negligent, or accidental, during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the felony. (Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 388.) “The Legislature has said in effect that this deterrent purpose outweighs the normal legislative policy of examining the individual state of mind of each person causing an unlawful killing to determine whether the killing was with or without malice, deliberate or accidental, and calibrating our treatment of the person accordingly. Once a person perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate one of the enumerated felonies, then in the judgment of the Legislature, he is no longer entitled to such fine judicial calibration, but will be deemed guilty of first degree murder for any homicide committed in the course thereof.” (Ibid.)

Defendants contend that a nonkiller’s liability for the felony murder committed by a cofelon depends on proof of a very specific causal relationship between the homicidal act and the underlying felony—namely, that the killer intended thereby to advance or facilitate the felony. Yet, defendants cite no case in which we have relieved a nonkiller of felony-murder liability because of insufficient proof that the killer actually intended to advance or facilitate the underlying felony. Indeed, the felony-murder rule is intended to eliminate the need to plumb the parties’ peculiar intent with respect to a killing committed during the perpetration of the felony. (Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 388.)[2] Defendants’ formulation, which finds no support in the statutory text, would thwart that goal.

Moreover, defendants’ formulation is at odds with a fundamental purpose of the felony-murder rule, which is “ ‘to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for killings they commit.’ ” (People v. Billa (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1064, 1069.) It is difficult to imagine how homicidal acts that are unintentional, negligent, or accidental could be said to have advanced or facilitated the underlying felony when those acts are, by their nature, unintended.

[2] As we have previously explained, it is no defense to felony murder that the nonkiller did not intend to kill, forbade his associates to kill, or was himself unarmed. (People v. Boss (1930) 210 Cal. 245, 249; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 707, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36.)

People v. Cavitt & Williams-S105058-6/21/04

Jun 21 2004

S105058
[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Cavitt & Williams S1050586/21/04 SC