The very last email I will answer--
re: Felony Murder Rule and Accomplice Liability/Conspiratorial 
Liability...

I'd like to refer all of you to a post that I posted about 2-3 
months ago on the LIMITS of FMR.

http://www.geocities.com/crimlawhelp/post2.html

_____________________________________________________________________

Here's a couple of Multiple Choice Questions to try out on this 
subject:

1) Late one night, Jimmie and Jessie broke into Gold's Jewel Store. 
As they wre looting the store, Mr. Gold, the owner who lived across 
the street, looked out his window and saw additional lights on in 
the sotre. Consequently, Mr. Gold hurriedly dressed and ran across 
the street to his store. Before he arrived however, Jessie became 
scared and left the store through a back entrance. When Mr. Gold 
entered the store, Jimmie hid behind a display counter. As the 
owner walked towards the cash register, he discovered Jimmie in a 
crouched position. Startled, Jimmie pulled out a knife and stabbed 
Mr. Gold to death.

Can Jessie be found guilty, if he is subsequently arrested and 
charged with murder?

a) No, because the killing was unintentional

b) No, becauase he had renounced his participation in the felony 
before the killing

c) No, because Mr. Gold's death was not a foreseeable consequence of 
the burglary

d) Yes, provided that he is also found guilty of burglary


Questions 2 & 3, based on the same fact situtation

Bonnie and Teela decided to rob the First National Bank in Clovis. 
They agreed to use unloaded guns in the robbery. As planned, Teela 
entered the bank while Bonnie stationed herself outside as a 
lookout. Teela approached Akeem, the bank teller, pointed her 
unloaded pistol at him and said, "This is a stick-up...give me your 
money and no one will get hurt."

While Akeem was handing the money to Teela, Bonnie got scared and 
fled. Meanwhile, Ralph, a bank patron who was in line, saw Teela 
pointing the gun at Akeem and fainted. He fell backwards and 
cracked his head on the marble floor. This resulted in a fatal head 
injury. Moments later, Teela left the bank with the loot. 
Thereafter, Teela and Bonnie were arrested.


2) If Teela is prosecuted for felony murder and acquitted, the most 
likely reason will be because

a) Teela's gun was unloaded

b) There was not a sufficient connection between Ralph's death and 
the robbery

c) Teela didn't intend to harm anyone during the robbery

d) This jurisdiction has adopted the Redline Limitation to the 
felony murder rule.


3) Assume for the purposes of this question only that Bonnie is 
subsequently prosecuted for felony murder and acquitted. Her 
acquittal most likely resulted because

a) Bonnie abandoned her participation in the crime

b) Ralph's death was accidental

c) Teela, as co-conspirator, was acquitted

d) Ralph was not placed in apprehension of bodily harm

************************ A N S W E R S *****************************

1) (D)
2) (B) 
3) (C)

EXPLANATIONS

1) Correct Answer (D)
Note that at the early common law, one whose conduct brought about 
an unintended death in the commission or attempt of a felony was 
guilty of murder. LaFave and Scott note that today, however, the 
law of felony murder varies substantially throughout the country, 
largely as a result of efforts to limit the scope of felony-murder 
rule. Generally, the homicide must have some causal connection with 
the felony in order to qualify for felony murder; more than a mere 
coincidence of time and place is necessary. In most jurisdictions 
even more than a but-for causal relationship is required, the usual 
rule being that the death must be the "foreseeable" or "natural 
result" of the felony. Aside from these matters, however, the 
term, "in the commission of" implies a more or less close causal 
connection between the felony and the homicide. LaFave and Scott 
note, in this regard, that the defendant, having committed a robbery 
or burglary, is carrying away the booty at the time of the homicide 
is not so much relevant as to the matter of time as it is as a 
matter of causal relation. Thus, one who carries booty is often 
more in need of a homicide to effect an escape than one who does 
not. 

To illustrate, where a robber, carrying in his car the fruits of his 
robbery, is stopped by a policeman for speeding some time after and 
some distance away from the place of robbery and he shoots the 
policeman to death to prevent his discovery of the stolen goods, the 
causal connection between the robbery and the homicide is quite 
close. A similar shooting by a robber without booty would lack the 
causal connection necessary to place the homicide "in the commission 
of" the robbery. As such, whether there is a sufficient causal 
connection between the felony and the homicide depends on whehter 
the defendant's felony dictated his conduct which led to the 
homicide. In the present example, it clearly did. Jimmie killed 
Mr. Gold obviously to prevent discovery of the looting of the 
jewelry store. 

With regard to the vicarious responsibility of Jessie (for Mr. 
Gold's death), it is often said that all parties are guilty for 
DEVIATIONS from the common plan which are the foreseeable 
consequences of carrying out the plan (eg an accidental shooting 
during an armed robbery being a typical example of a foreseeable 
deviation from the plan to rob). 

Under the established rule, accomplice liability extends to acts of 
the principal in the first degree which were a "natural and probable 
consequence" of the criminal scheme the accomplice encouraged or 
aided. 

Choice D is therefore correct because the causal connection between 
the burglary and the homicide was sufficiently close. Note that 
choice B is wrong because a mere change of heart or flight from the 
crime scene will not effectuate withdrawal from the crime. Rather 
LaFave and Scott note it is necessary for the accomplice to (1) to 
repudiate his prior aid or (2) do all that is possible to 
countermaid his prior aid or counsel and (3) do so before the chain 
of events has become unstoppable. 


2) Correct Answer (B)
At early common law one whose conduct brought about an unintended 
death in the commission or attempted commission of a felony was 
guilty of (felony) murder. American jurisdictions, however, have 
limited the rule in one or more of the following ways: 1) by 
permitting its use only as to certain types of felonies; 2) by more 
strict interpretation of the requirement of proximate or legal 
cause; and 3) by a narrower construction of the time period during 
which the felony is in the process of the commission. With respect 
to the proximate or legal cause limitation, it is often said that 
the death must have been the "natural and probable consequence" of 
the defendant's conduct. Therefore, choice B is the best answer 
because looking at the matter with hindsight, it seems extraordinary 
that a death would actually come about in such an unforeseeable 
manner.


3) Correct Answer (C)
Obviously, to constitute a conspiracy there "must be a combination 
of two or more persons." LaFave notes that this plurality 
requirement might be restated in terms of at least 2 guilty parties, 
for acquittal of all persons with whom the defendant is alleged to 
have conspired precludes his or her conviction. Thus, if A and B 
are jointly charged with a conspiracy not alleged to involve any 
other parties and the jury returns a verdict of guilty as to A and 
not guilty as to B, A's conviction may not stand. Martinez v. 
People, 267 P.2d 654 (1954).