People v. Billa
31 Cal. 4th 1064 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The felony-murder rule applies to hold an arsonist liable for the murder of a co-conspirator who dies accidentally during the commission of the arson, provided the defendant was present at the scene and an active participant in the crime.
Facts:
- Defendant purchased a truck and insured it for physical damage.
- Defendant, Manoj Bhardwaj, and a third individual conspired to commit arson by burning the truck to collect the insurance proceeds.
- On August 26, 1997, all three conspirators drove to a secluded gravel road to carry out the plan.
- During the events leading up to the fire, Bhardwaj's clothing became saturated with fuel.
- While the three men were in the process of setting the truck on fire, Bhardwaj's clothing ignited.
- Bhardwaj was severely burned as a result and later died from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged with second degree murder under a felony-murder theory, arson, and insurance fraud.
- A jury in the trial court convicted defendant on all counts.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the murder conviction, holding that the felony-murder rule was properly applied.
- The Supreme Court of California granted defendant's petition for review to decide the applicability of the felony-murder rule.
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 the felony-murder rule apply to a defendant for the accidental death of a co-conspirator when the defendant was present and actively participating in the underlying felony of arson?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes. The felony-murder rule applies when a co-perpetrator is killed during the commission of an arson if the defendant was present and actively participated in the felony. The rule's primary purpose is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally, and holding them strictly responsible for any deaths—including those of accomplices—maximizes this deterrent effect. The court distinguished this case from People v. Ferlin, where the defendant was not present at the scene. Here, the defendant was an active participant whose actions were a direct cause of the death. The court reasoned that while the result of the death was opposed to the conspiracy, the acts causing the death were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Therefore, liability attaches to all accomplices who are present and active participants in the events causing the death.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of the 'co-felon death' exception to the felony-murder rule established in People v. Ferlin. It establishes that a defendant's physical presence and active participation at the scene of the felony are critical factors that can override the Ferlin precedent, which had shielded an absent co-conspirator from liability. The ruling reinforces the broad deterrent purpose of the felony-murder rule by extending its protection to the lives of accomplices, signaling that courts will be hesitant to create further exceptions to the rule, particularly when a defendant is directly involved in the lethal acts.
