Forden v. Joseph G.
667 P.2d 1176, 34 Cal. 3d 429, 194 Cal. Rptr. 163 (1983)
Rule of Law:
A survivor of a genuine suicide pact who performs the lethal act resulting in the partner's death is guilty of aiding and abetting suicide, rather than murder, provided the instrumentality used was intended to kill both parties simultaneously and subjected them to identical risks.
Facts:
- Joseph G. (the minor) and his friend Jeff W., both 16 years old, entered into a mutual suicide pact.
- The two met friends at a library and explicitly announced their intention to drive a car off a specific cliff.
- Joseph and Jeff shook hands with their friends as a final farewell.
- Joseph drove his car with Jeff as the passenger to a cliff with a 300- to 350-foot drop.
- Joseph drove the vehicle at approximately 50 miles per hour straight off the precipice without braking or swerving.
- The impact of the crash killed Jeff instantly.
- Joseph survived the crash with severe injuries, including the amputation of a foot.
- Joseph admitted to friends and authorities that he drove off the cliff on purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a petition in the Juvenile Court charging Joseph G. with murder (Pen. Code § 187) and aiding and abetting suicide (Pen. Code § 401).
- The Juvenile Court sustained the petition regarding the murder count, finding it to be in the first degree.
- The Juvenile Court dismissed the aiding and abetting charge as inapplicable.
- Joseph G. appealed the Juvenile Court's finding of murder.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a survivor of a genuine suicide pact guilty of murder, rather than aiding and abetting suicide, when they actively perform the specific lethal act that kills their partner while intending to kill themselves simultaneously?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk
No. The Court held that the minor's actions constituted aiding and abetting suicide rather than murder. While traditional common law creates a distinction where 'active participation' in a death constitutes murder (e.g., shooting someone) and 'passive assistance' constitutes aiding suicide (e.g., handing someone a gun), the Court found this mechanical distinction inappropriate for genuine suicide pacts involving simultaneous risk. The Court reasoned that a suicide pact is a 'hybrid' akin to a double attempted suicide, which modern law generally seeks to decriminalize or treat with leniency. Because Joseph drove the car off the cliff, subjecting himself to the exact same risk of death at the exact same moment as Jeff, there was no risk of fraud or deception often found in murder-suicide scenarios where one party kills the other but survives. The Court noted the arbitrariness of charging Joseph with murder simply because he was the driver; had the passenger survived, he would only be liable for aiding suicide. Therefore, in cases of genuine pacts using a single instrumentality for simultaneous death, the appropriate charge is aiding and abetting suicide (Penal Code § 401).
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the 'active participation' rule established in People v. Matlock. Generally, if a defendant actively performs the act that kills a person (even with that person's consent), it is murder. In re Joseph G. modifies this for genuine suicide pacts, acknowledging the psychological equivalence between the two participants. The Court emphasized that when the risk is identical and simultaneous (like driving a car off a cliff or gassing a room), the moral culpability of the survivor is that of an aider/abettor, not a murderer. This ruling prevents the arbitrary application of homicide laws based on who held the wheel or turned the knob in a mutual act of self-destruction. It aligns California law closer to the Model Penal Code's approach, viewing suicide pacts more as a tragedy of mental illness than a malicious crime against another.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Forden v. Joseph G. (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"