By: Ray Hill, Professor Emeritus, Santa Rosa Junior College

Special Message: Welcome Redlands Police Department (San Bernardino County) to LEGALUPDATES.COM. You are most welcome to comment or ask questions on any of my articles. Recognition to your department for the commitment to keep staff “legally updated”.

CASE ALERT:

To Be Liable for Murder 1st Under the Felony Murder Rule, the Perpetrator Must “Actually Cause” the Death of Another During the Course of the Predicate Crime – 190.2 / 198 P.C. (California v. Vang, 3DCA #C090365, 8/5/22).

This recent case illustrates Hill’s Rule #2 – “The Law is Not Always Logical”. “It Just Is!”.

Defendant was charged with numerous felony crimes against a former girlfriend and his wife. He and his wife got into an argument over alleged infidelity. She drove away in her vehicle. The defendant followed and eventually blocked her path with his vehicle and forced her into his truck. In a desperate act to escape during further transit, the victim began to open the passenger door. Defendant told officers he attempted to grab her (his version), but she pulled way, and jumped from the vehicle. She suffered massive head injuries and died at the scene.

Under the Felony Murder Rule doctrine, defendant was charged and convicted of Murder 1st with Special Circumstances– a homicide committed during the commission of an underlying felony (kidnapping).

3DCA reversed the Murder 1st conviction. In 2018, our legislature (in their infinite wisdom) passed SB 1437 amending 190.2 / 198 P.C. Looking at the Senate Resolution accompanying this legislation, our elected representatives felt that it was” inequitable” to apply the Felony Murder Rule to a person based solely on one’s participation in a “statutorily enumerated" felony crime. “In California, defendants in felony murder cases are not judged based on their level of intention or culpability but are sentenced as if they had the intent to kill even if the killing was unintentional, accidental, or negligent”. Accordingly, the Legislature recognized “the need for statutory changes to more equitably sentence offenders in accordance with their involvement in the crime.” 

As amended, the Felony Murder Rule applies only when a defendant’s conduct personally causes the death of another. This means the defendant must have “actually killed the victim or acted with intent (mens rea) to kill”. So the defendant’s argument on appeal was simple – He was not the killer. He did not push the victim from the vehicle. He tried to prevent her from jumping out (at least that was the hearsay testimony given by an investigating officer). The victim jumped out on her own accord. The appellate court agreed, vacated the Murder 1st conviction, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further disposition on the homicide charge.

So this defendant escapes Life Without the Possibility of Parole. No worry – he is not getting out anytime soon. He was convicted of kidnapping, multiple counts of felony domestic violence, multiple counts of terrorist threats with a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. With a “prior strike” conviction, he faces 20 years, 8 months in CDR&R on one set of charges and a consecutive 18 years, 8 months on the second set of charges. He is in “cold storage” for up to 40 years!

Some of us (like myself) were under the impression that if a suspect committed a predicate felony (kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary) and a death proximately occurs during commission of this offense, its Murder 1st. This case points to the investigative need to establish independent proof that not only did a death occur, but the defendant was the “actual killer”.

Brings up an interesting question. Under past statute and case precedent, if there was an armed fleeing robbery suspect (shot a clerk during the robbery), who is fleeing and presents a clear and imminent danger to life and limb, and police attempt to use deadly force to stop the suspect’s escape, but an errant police bullet unintentionally kills a bystander, the suspect would be charged with Murder 1st. Now there will be a defense argument that the suspect wasn’t the “actual killer”, the law enforcement officer was (albeit an accident), so Murder 1st no longer applies (190.2 / 198 P.C.). Also, to what extent are persons sentenced under the prior Felony Murder Rule rule entitled to a court rehearing and reconsideration of their sentence?

Stay Safe,

RH