Commonwealth v. Almeida
68 A.2d 595, 12 A.L.R. 2d 183, 362 Pa. 596 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant engaged in the commission of a felony can be found guilty of murder if their actions are the proximate cause of a death, even if the fatal act is committed by a third party, such as a police officer, attempting to thwart the felony.
Facts:
- David Almeida, Edward Hough, and James Smith planned and armed themselves to commit a robbery.
- The three men stole a car and drove to an Acme Market.
- Almeida and Hough entered the market with drawn guns, announced a hold-up, and stole money from cash registers and a customer.
- While inside, Almeida fired his gun at the store manager but did not hit him.
- As the men attempted to escape in the stolen car, police officers arrived at the scene.
- A gunfight ensued between the robbers and the police.
- During the exchange of gunfire, off-duty patrolman Cecil Ingling, who was attempting to apprehend Hough, was shot and killed.
- Evidence suggested that the fatal bullet may have been fired by a police officer rather than by one of the robbers.
Procedural Posture:
- David Almeida was indicted and tried for the murder of Cecil Ingling in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County (a trial court).
- At trial, the defense contended that Almeida could not be convicted of murder if the fatal bullet was fired by a police officer.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that it made no difference who fired the fatal shot and that if the killing occurred during the perpetration of a robbery, it was murder in the first degree.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and imposed the death penalty.
- Almeida (appellant) filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Almeida then appealed the judgment and sentence to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's participation in a felony that sets in motion a chain of events resulting in a death make the defendant guilty of murder, even if the fatal shot was fired by a third person acting in opposition to the felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Maxey
Yes. A defendant is guilty of murder if their felonious act is the proximate cause of another's death. When a felon's attempt to commit a robbery sets in motion a chain of events that were or should have been contemplated, the felon is responsible for any death that is a direct and almost inevitable sequence of the initial criminal act. Resistance from police or victims is a foreseeable consequence of an armed robbery. Therefore, when such resistance leads to a death, the felons whose actions initiated the violence are criminally liable for the murder, regardless of who fired the fatal shot.
Dissenting - Justice Jones
No. While a felon can be held responsible for a death caused by an indirect chain of events, the question of whether the felon's conduct was the proximate cause of the homicide is a question of fact that must be decided by the jury. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that it made no difference who fired the fatal shot and that they only needed to find that a robbery was in perpetration to convict the defendant of murder. This removed the essential element of causation from the jury's consideration, which constitutes a fundamental error requiring a new trial.
Concurring - Justice Linn
I concur in affirming the judgment. Although the trial court's instructions to the jury may have been erroneous, the record convinces me that the appellant was not harmed by them. Therefore, the error does not warrant a reversal of the conviction.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the felony-murder rule in Pennsylvania by formally adopting the proximate cause theory for third-party killings. The decision establishes that a felon's liability for murder extends beyond deaths directly caused by their own hand or that of a co-felon. By holding felons responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their crimes, including lethal force used by police or victims, the ruling broadens the scope of criminal culpability and sets a precedent that will influence similar cases involving deaths that occur during the commission of a dangerous felony.
