• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I love felony murder laws

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
In my example above, since the defendant was not himself committing a felony, does lending a car that (unintentionally?) ends up being used in a felony, resulting in a death, constitute a felony murder charge?

I think you're failing to understand felony murder.

You have to commit a felony for it apply. So in your example of lending a car, they would have to have some knowledge of what it would be used for in order to be accomplices.
 
The law and the common law rule do not recognize that distinction.

Then the law is stupid.

There is a pretty drastic difference between

a) 2 thugs robbing a convenience store and one of thugs shooting a bystander and then charging the other thug with felony murder and

b) 2 thugs robbing a convenience store and the shop keeper shooting one of the thugs and then charging the surviving thug with felony murder.

If the law does not recognize the difference between the 2 situations it should be changed.
 
Don't worry too much if you think it doesn't make sense, because it just doesn't, just like one absolutely cannot turn bread into wine.
 
Then the law is stupid.

There is a pretty drastic difference between

a) 2 thugs robbing a convenience store and one of thugs shooting a bystander and then charging the other thug with felony murder and

b) 2 thugs robbing a convenience store and the shop keeper shooting one of the thugs and then charging the surviving thug with felony murder.

If the law does not recognize the difference between the 2 situations it should be changed.

Neh, the law does recognize the distinction. About half the states have statutes that specifically define the difference. In your example, a. is murder or aggravated murder; b. is felony murder.

Some states don't have it on the books yet recognize it as a common law principle. Some states have specifically excluded felony murder.

I like the irony of your example b. Imagine some scumbag's lawyer breaking the news!
 
The felony murder rule is fairly straight forward.

Felony murder rule applies for any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder.

Some states have abolished this. Other states limit it to violent felonies.

The most common scenario/hypo is, there are two criminal committing an armed robbery, police respond. Criminal #1 points gun at police. Police kill criminal #1. Criminal #2 is charged under the felony murder rule with the death of Criminal #1.

The felony murder rule is heavily tested on the MBE part of the bar exam. The prosecutor/jury/judge isn't making up law. Its law that has existed since the 12th century. It has been modified by case law and statutory law(codification, limitations, abolishment) ever since. The Supreme Court has chimed in, felony murder is constitutional. They have also ruled on the constitutionality of the death penalty for felony murder. In some cases its okay, other cases(most) it is not.
 
Last edited:
Along the lines of this thread, if someone sells drugs, and there is a death
caused by an overdose, should the seller be charged with felony murder?

Yes.

Can also be used, for example, if the CEO of a large corporation does something illegal (felony) that causes or facilitates the death of third parties. Say he orders the destruction of a damming safety report on a car. If that is a felony in his state, and someone dies from it...
 
No, if the selling of the drugs was a felony it would qualify is my interpretation.

Felony murder applies to: during the commission of a crime that is a felony(a lot of states require it to be a dangerous felony and spell out which ones) or the flight immediately following the commission of said crime

Your CEO hypo doesn't work. The CEO could potentially be charged with other crimes, negligent homicide, reckless homicide, depraved indifference, etc, but not felony murder.

The drugs case/hypo is also a huge stretch. The drug dealers crime is selling the drugs. He is not a co-conspirator to any subsequent crime that drug user commits(drug use/possession). He could however be charged with other crimes, just not felony murder.

In addition, almost every state that has a reasonably foreseeable standard as felony murder is codified and limited these days. See CA, where it was not reasonably foreseeable that during the immediate flight from a robbery that the stolen goods would fall off the robbers truck and kill someone.

However, it is reasonably foreseeable that someone may get killed during a robbery of a home(as in the case of the OP). Sucks the kids are in a state that allows for felony murder liability for the deaths of co-conspirators/participants. Not every state has felony murder, and those that do only around half allow for felony murder liability for the deaths of co-conspirators/participants.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top