Felony Murder Rule – An Update Case (California v. Garcia (9/2/22) 3DCA C093430)

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

     In August, I reported on a case decision reflecting legislative changes (SB 1437 – 2019) which amended the Felony Murder Rule (California v. Vang, LU Ref. #CAB00171, 8/5/22). Now a perpetrator can only be responsible under the Felony Murder Rule when his/her act(s) was the “actual cause” of death that occurred during an underlying felony (190.2 P.C./198 P.C.). During the course of a kidnapping in the Vang case, the defendant’s wife jumped from a moving vehicle and died from resulting injuries. 2DCA ruled the victims jumping from the car was an independent act done on her own accord and was not a direct result of the defendant’s actions during the crime (even though he was convicted of kidnapping!). Bottom line - she caused her own death. Defendant’s FMR conviction was overturned.

     At the end of this article, I mentioned “standby” for other defense appeals on past convictions arguing the SB 1437 changes were not applied in their cases. So, a follow up case just a month later. It stems from a homicide in 1993!

     Defendant physically assaulted an 82-year old man in an alley, put him in a headlock, struck him in the head, and rendered the victim temporarily unconscious (“he knocked me out”). Defendant stole victim’s wallet containing $15-$30 and fled the scene. The victim regained consciousness and attempted to walk home. Not feeling well, he went into a store and called 9-1-1. Witnesses testified the victim had a “large bump on this head”. Officers responded and began taking a statement, but the victim’s responsiveness began to go downhill. He lapsed into unconsciousness. EMS was called, and despite resuscitation efforts, the victim died in the hospital 50-minutes later. The cause of death was determined to be lethal cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heart beat).

     Defendant was convicted under the Felony Murder. He appealed and filed a petition for resentencing. His argument – the victim had pre-existing medical conditions of high blood pressure and cardiac disease. Thus, he wasn’t the “actual killer” (189(a)(1) P.C.), the victim’s bad heart was the ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.