People v. Aaron
299 N.W.2d 304, 409 Mich. 672, 13 A.L.R. 4th 1180 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent to commit an underlying felony is insufficient, by itself, to establish the element of malice required for a murder conviction. Malice must be demonstrated by proving the defendant acted with an intent to kill, an intent to inflict great bodily harm, or a wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of their behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.
Facts:
- In the first consolidated case, Robert Thompson engaged in an armed robbery.
- During the course of the robbery committed by Thompson, Mary Emma Hendry was killed.
- In the second case, defendant Wright intentionally set fire to a dwelling.
- Two people, Joe Thomas and Odel Barnes, died as a result of the fire set by Wright.
- In the third case, defendant Aaron participated in an armed robbery.
- During the armed robbery, Aaron killed the victim.
Procedural Posture:
- In Thompson, a jury in the trial court convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed Thompson's conviction.
- In Wright, a jury in the trial court convicted the defendant of two counts of first-degree felony murder.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed Wright's convictions.
- In Aaron, a jury in the trial court convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed Aaron's conviction.
- The Michigan Supreme Court (highest court) granted leave to appeal and consolidated all three cases to resolve the question of whether malice is a required element in a felony-murder prosecution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a prosecution for murder, is the intent to commit the underlying felony sufficient by itself to establish the element of malice required for a murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Fitzgerald, J.
No. The common-law felony-murder rule is abrogated; malice is an essential element of any murder and cannot be satisfied solely by the intent to commit the underlying felony. The court reasoned that the felony-murder rule is a judicial anachronism of dubious origin that violates the basic principle of individual moral culpability. After a thorough review of its history, the court determined that Michigan never codified the rule, as the state's first-degree murder statute (MCL 750.316) is a degree-raising provision that applies only after a common-law murder—a homicide with malice—has been established. Exercising its authority to shape the common law, the court held that malice must be found by the jury based on evidence of intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or wanton and willful disregard for human life, though the circumstances of the felony may be used as evidence from which to infer malice.
Concurring - Ryan, J.
No. The common-law crime of felony murder, which does not require malice, should no longer exist in Michigan. Justice Ryan argued that the majority mischaracterizes the felony-murder rule by treating 'intent to commit a felony' as a type of malice. In his view, felony murder was a separate offense that dispensed with the malice requirement altogether, making it fundamentally different from murder. He views the 'imputation' of malice as a legal fiction. Agreeing that the rule is unprincipled because it fails to connect liability with culpability, he concurred in abolishing the offense entirely, thus requiring the prosecution to prove malice—as traditionally defined—for any murder conviction.
Concurring - Williams, J.
No. The plain language of the first-degree murder statute requires proof of malice separate from the felony. Justice Williams's concurrence focused on statutory interpretation, arguing that the statute's text—'All murder which... shall be committed in the perpetration... of any arson... shall be murder of the first degree'—presupposes that a 'murder' must be proven first. Since the legal definition of murder has always required malice, the statute does not eliminate this element. Therefore, the prosecution must establish malice before the statute can operate to elevate the crime to first-degree murder based on its commission during an enumerated felony.
Analysis:
This landmark decision abolishes the common-law felony-murder doctrine in Michigan, a significant departure from centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition. It brings Michigan's homicide law in line with the modern view that criminal liability should be based on individual culpability. By eliminating the legal fiction that substitutes intent to commit a felony for malice, the ruling raises the evidentiary burden for prosecutors in cases where a death occurs during a felony. Going forward, prosecutors must prove one of the three traditional forms of malice, although juries may still infer malice from the dangerous nature and circumstances of the underlying felony.
