Understanding Felony Murder: Law Of Parties Application

The felony murder rule is a law in most states and under federal law that allows anyone who is accused of committing a violent felony to be charged with murder if the commission of that felony results in the death of someone. The rule of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which states that the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, applies to any consequences of that crime regardless of intent. The law of parties, as defined by Texas law, states that a person can be criminally responsible for the actions of another in certain circumstances, including conspiracy to commit a felony. Therefore, the law of parties applies to felony murder, as the felony murder rule states that all participants in a felony can be charged with murder if a death occurs during the commission of the felony, regardless of their role in the actual killing or their intent to kill.

The felony murder rule and intent to kill

The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine in some jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder. It states that when someone is killed during the commission of a dangerous crime or felony, the offender and their accomplices or co-conspirators may be found guilty of murder, regardless of their intent to kill. This rule originated from the concept of transferred intent, where the malicious intent inherent in any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, regardless of intent.

The felony murder rule eliminates the need for prosecutors to prove "malice," a heightened mental state for murder that includes premeditation, intent to kill, or a "depraved heart," resulting from extreme recklessness towards human life. Instead, malice is assumed from the commission of the underlying felony. For example, if a person commits burglary by breaking into a home intending to steal, but the homeowner dies accidentally during the act, the burglar can be found guilty of murder under the felony murder rule, despite not intending to kill.

The rule applies even if the defendant did not directly cause the death, as long as the death occurred during the commission of the felony. This is known as the "proximate cause" theory, where any death, even if caused by a bystander or police officer, can lead to murder charges for all participants in the felony. However, some states follow the "agency theory," which limits liability to deaths caused by the defendants or their partners in the act.

While the felony murder rule can result in harsh penalties, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty in some states, it has been criticised for disregarding the principle of intent in criminal law. The rule has been abolished in several jurisdictions, including England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US, such as Kentucky and Michigan.

The rule's application in the US

The felony murder rule is a law in most states and under federal law that allows anyone accused of committing a violent felony to be charged with murder if someone dies as a result. This is the case even if the accused had no intention to kill or even if they didn't directly cause the death. The rule originated in England in 1716 but was abolished there in 1957. The United States continues to use the concept in many states today, with some variation in the law between states.

The felony murder rule can be applied when a person commits a felony and someone dies during that felony. For example, if someone sets fire to a building but has no intention to hurt or kill anyone, and then an unintended person dies in the fire, the felony murder rule can be applied. In this case, the arsonist can be charged with the murder of the person who died. The rule can also be applied when one or more people are participating in a felony, and one person kills someone, even if the others did not intend for anyone to be killed. In this case, all participants can be charged with felony murder.

The felony murder rule can also apply when no participant in the felony directly kills anyone. For example, if someone intends to commit the felony of robbing a bank, and a third-party bystander, such as a bank worker, tries to stop the robbery and accidentally kills a customer, the offending bank robber can be charged with felony murder.

The felony murder rule has been criticised for requiring no intent to kill and for punishing people for crimes they did not commit or intend to commit. It has also been criticised for disproportionately targeting youth, women, and non-white people. In addition, it has been argued that the rule does not act as a deterrent to crime and does not honour the sanctity of human life.

However, the rule has been defended on the basis that it affirms the principle of the sanctity of human life by imposing harsher penalties for crimes that destroy human life.

Some states have made changes to the felony murder rule. For example, in 2021, Illinois narrowed the felony-murder rule by moving from a proximate cause theory to an agency theory for felony murder. This means that the death must be caused by the defendant or another participant in the underlying felony, rather than by a third party. In California, a 2018 reform effort led to a more expansive overhaul of the state's rule, with prosecutors now having to prove that an accomplice acted as a "major participant" in the felony and with "reckless indifference to human life" during the killing.

The rule's history and abolition in England

The felony murder rule originated in England in 1716, with the publication of William Hawkins' Treatise of Pleas of the Crown. Hawkins reasoned that malice was implicit in a crime that "necessarily tends to raise Tumults and Quarrels, and consequently cannot but be attended with the danger of personal hurt." Thus, "this rule should extend to killings in the course of felonies à fortiori."

The rule was abolished in England and Wales in 1957 by section 1 of the Homicide Act. It was also abolished in Northern Ireland in 1966 by section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act. However, its effect has been preserved by the application of the common law principle of joint enterprise. The definition of murder in England and Wales requires only an intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, rather than a specific intent to kill. This has a similar effect to the felony murder rule when applied to crimes of personal violence, though not to all felonies.

In 2006, the Law Commission considered and rejected the suggestion of reinstating the felony murder rule in English law as part of a broad review of the law on murder.

'Agency' and 'proximate cause' theories of causation

The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine in some common-law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder. When someone is killed during the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender and their accomplices or co-conspirators may be found guilty of murder, regardless of their intent to kill.

There are two theories of causation that determine liability under the felony murder rule: the agency theory and the proximate cause theory.

Agency Theory

The agency theory limits the scope of liability by holding individuals responsible only for deaths that they or their partners in the act cause. In other words, it applies only when the killing is committed by the felon or their agent. Under this theory, the identity of the killer is the threshold inquiry, and the rule does not extend to killings attributable to someone other than the felon or their co-felons. A majority of jurisdictions follow the agency theory of liability for felony murder.

Proximate Cause Theory

A minority of jurisdictions employ the proximate cause theory, which holds the felon liable for any death resulting from the felony, whether the killer is a felon or a third party. This theory is based on the idea that when a felon's actions set in motion a chain of events that result in a death, they should be held responsible for that death. Under this theory, all participants in the felony can be charged with murder if a death occurs, even if it is caused by a bystander, victim, or police officer.

Comparison

The choice between the agency theory and the proximate cause theory depends on how far liability should extend under the felony murder rule. While the agency theory limits liability to killings committed by the felon or their agent, the proximate cause theory imposes liability for any death proximately resulting from the felony. This theory is broader and can lead to individuals being charged with murder even when they did not directly cause the death.

The application of these theories can have a significant impact on the outcome of cases involving felony murder. For example, in the case of State v. Sophophone, the defendant was prosecuted for felony murder after a co-felon was shot and killed by a police officer during their escape from a burglary. The court applied the agency theory and reversed the felony murder conviction, holding that the defendant could not be held responsible for the lawful killing of a co-felon by a police officer.

The choice between the agency theory and the proximate cause theory of causation under the felony murder rule depends on the specific jurisdiction and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. While the agency theory limits liability to killings committed by the felon or their agents, the proximate cause theory imposes broader liability for any death proximately resulting from the felony. The selection of the appropriate theory is crucial in determining liability and sentencing in felony murder cases.

The rule's impact on youth, women and non-white people

The felony murder rule has a disproportionate impact on youth, women, and non-white people. In the United States, almost half of those charged under the rule are under the age of 25. The rule also enables police officers to escape liability for the use of excessive force, particularly against people of color.

The felony murder rule allows for a person to be charged with murder if someone is killed during the commission of a dangerous felony, regardless of intent to kill. This rule has been criticized for its disproportionate impact on youth, particularly young people of color. In Minnesota, a review of criminal convictions found that most white defendants charged under the rule were initially charged with more serious offenses, while for most Black defendants, felony murder was the most serious charge. This suggests that the rule is used more frequently to charge people of color with murder, even when intent to kill cannot be proven. Furthermore, almost half of those charged with felony murder in Minnesota were under the age of 25, indicating that the rule disproportionately affects young people.

The rule has also been criticized for enabling police officers to escape liability for the use of excessive force, particularly against people of color. When a person is killed as a result of police shooting, the liability for the death can be transferred away from the shooting officer and interpreted as a consequence of the victim's criminal act. This allows the shooting officer and their department to avoid scrutiny and potential punishment, perpetuating a cycle of excessive force and carelessness.

In addition to its impact on youth and people of color, the felony murder rule has also been known to affect women. For example, in 1998, Lisl Auman was convicted under the felony murder rule in connection with a felony burglary conviction and initially received a life sentence. Her conviction was later reversed, and she pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

Frequently asked questions