People v. Cavitt
91 P.3d 222, 33 Cal. 4th 187, 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 281 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a non-killer to be liable for first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule, the prosecution must prove both a causal and a temporal relationship between the underlying felony and the fatal act. The causal relationship requires a logical nexus beyond mere coincidence, and the temporal relationship requires the felony and homicide to be part of one continuous transaction.
Facts:
- Mianta McKnight, her boyfriend James Cavitt, and his friend Robert Williams planned to burglarize the home of Mianta's stepmother, Betty McKnight.
- On the evening of December 1, 1995, Mianta let Cavitt and Williams into the home.
- Cavitt and Williams threw a sheet over Betty's head, punched her, and used rope and duct tape to hog-tie her, leaving her facedown on a bed.
- The trio then stole cash, jewelry, guns, and other valuables from the bedroom.
- When Cavitt and Williams left, Betty was alive but her breathing was labored.
- To create an alibi, Cavitt and Williams pretended to bind Mianta and placed her on the bed next to Betty before they escaped.
- After Mianta freed herself, she called her father to report a robbery; by the time police arrived, Betty was dead from asphyxiation.
Procedural Posture:
- James Cavitt and Robert Williams were charged with first-degree murder with special circumstances of robbery and burglary.
- They were convicted in separate trials in the California superior court (trial court).
- Both defendants appealed their convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal consolidated their cases for decision and affirmed the trial courts' judgments.
- The Supreme Court of California granted the defendants' petition for review to clarify the scope of non-killer liability under 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 California's felony-murder rule impose liability on a non-killer for a death committed by a co-felon when the fatal act has a logical nexus to the underlying felony and is part of a continuous transaction, even if the act was not specifically intended to further the felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes. California's felony-murder rule imposes liability on a non-killer for a death committed by a co-felon when the fatal act is logically connected to the felony and part of one continuous transaction, regardless of whether the killing was intended to further the felony. The court rejects both the defendants' narrow argument that the killing must 'further' the felony and the state's broad argument that mere coincidence in time is sufficient. Instead, it establishes a two-part requirement: a causal relationship (a 'logical nexus' between the felony and the killing) and a temporal relationship (the 'one continuous transaction' doctrine). A killing to eliminate a witness or an accidental death from being bound and gagged both satisfy the logical nexus requirement. It is not a defense that a co-felon may have had a personal animus toward the victim, as the rule focuses on objective facts connecting the death to the felony, not the killer's subjective motivation. The acts that caused Betty's death were part of the burglary-robbery itself, establishing a clear logical nexus and making the defendants liable for felony murder.
Concurring - Werdegar, J.
Concurs with the result. The standard jury instruction (CALJIC No. 8.27) does not adequately explain the need for a 'logical nexus' between the felony and the homicide. The instruction's language that the killer must be 'engaged in the commission' of the felony only informs the jury about the temporal connection, not the required causal or logical connection. While the failure to give a clearer instruction was harmless in this case because the logical nexus was obvious, trial courts in the future should explicitly instruct juries on this requirement.
Concurring - Chin, J.
Concurs fully with the majority. This opinion is written separately to agree that the standard jury instructions could be improved to more clearly articulate the requirements of both a causal (logical nexus) and temporal (continuous transaction) relationship. However, situations where the causal nexus is genuinely missing are exceedingly rare and more like 'law-school-type hypotheticals.' Therefore, while clearer instructions are preferable, the existing ones are generally adequate for the vast majority of real-world cases.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of accomplice liability under California's felony-murder rule by establishing the 'logical nexus' test. It navigates a middle path between a strict requirement that the killing must facilitate the felony and a loose standard where any coincidental death would suffice. The ruling solidifies the principle that felons are strictly responsible for deaths that are a direct or indirect result of the dangerous situation they create, even if caused by a co-felon for personal reasons. This precedent makes it more difficult for non-killer defendants to escape liability by arguing the killer acted on a 'private animus,' shifting the focus from the killer's subjective motive to the objective connection between the felony and the death.
