People v. Billa
31 Cal. 4th 1064 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the felony-murder rule, a person is liable for murder when a co-perpetrator accidentally dies during the commission of arson, provided the person was physically present and an active participant in the felony.
Facts:
- Defendant purchased a truck and insured it against physical damage.
- Defendant conspired with two others, including Manoj Bhardwaj, to burn the truck to collect the insurance money.
- On August 26, 1997, all three drove to a remote gravel road to carry out the arson.
- During the drive or at the scene, Bhardwaj's clothing became saturated with fuel.
- All three conspirators, including the defendant, were present and actively participated in setting the truck on fire.
- While setting the fire, Bhardwaj's fuel-soaked clothing ignited, causing severe burns.
- Bhardwaj subsequently died from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court convicted defendant of second degree murder, arson causing great bodily injury, and making a false insurance claim.
- The trial court's jury instructions for the murder charge were based solely on the felony-murder doctrine.
- Defendant appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal modified the judgment on other grounds but affirmed the murder conviction, holding that the felony-murder rule applied.
- The California Supreme Court granted the 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 hold a defendant liable for murder when a co-conspirator accidentally dies during the commission of an arson in which the defendant was present and actively participating?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, the felony-murder rule applies to hold a defendant liable for the death of a co-conspirator under these circumstances. The rule's primary purpose is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for any deaths they commit during the felony. This deterrent purpose is served by applying the rule to the deaths of accomplices, as it maximizes the incentive for all participants to ensure no one dies. The court distinguished this case from People v. Ferlin, where the defendant was not present at the scene. Here, the defendant was present and actively participating in the arson that directly caused Bhardwaj's death. The court reasoned that although the result of the death was opposed to the conspiracy's goal, the acts that caused the death were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, making the defendant liable.
Analysis:
This decision narrows the exception to the felony-murder rule established in People v. Ferlin, which had shielded co-conspirators from murder liability for the accidental death of an accomplice. The court establishes a critical distinction based on the defendant's physical presence and active participation in the felony. By focusing on the defendant's direct role in the acts causing death, the ruling expands potential liability for participants in dangerous felonies and signals a potential erosion of the Ferlin precedent, even while formally leaving it intact for cases where the defendant is not present at the scene.
