People v. Robertson
95 P.3d 872, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604, 34 Cal. 4th 156 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The merger doctrine, which generally prevents felonious assaults from serving as predicate felonies for second-degree felony murder, does not apply when the underlying felony of discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, § 246.3) is committed with a collateral and independent felonious design, such as to merely frighten away intruders.
Facts:
- During the evening of December 27, 1998, Kehinde Riley and Ricky Harris, accompanied by Bradley Gentry and Lamont Benton, arrived in front of Quincy Robertson's residence in Oakland.
- Riley and Harris began removing the hubcaps from Robertson's parked Chevrolet Caprice Classic, making loud noises.
- Robertson, hearing the noise while watching television with his family, retrieved a firearm and went outside, observing three or four men near his car, apparently dismantling or stealing it.
- Robertson claimed that upon emerging, he held his gun at a 45-degree angle and fired two warning shots, then later admitted walking to the sidewalk or street and firing three shots at the fleeing men, intending to 'scare people away from my domain.'
- Physical evidence contradicted Robertson's claim of firing at a 45-degree angle, with a bullet hole in his car windshield and two others two feet above ground level in a vehicle across the street.
- Kehinde Riley was shot in the back of the head, and his body was discovered approximately 50 yards from where gun casings indicated the firearm had been discharged from the middle of the street.
- Ricky Harris suffered a gunshot wound to the sole of his right foot.
- Robertson had been a victim of a shooting six months prior, resulting in a serious arm injury, and a psychologist testified he suffered from posttraumatic stress syndrome, leading to fearful and impulsive reactions.
Procedural Posture:
- Quincy Robertson was charged with second-degree murder and committing assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury.
- At trial, the jury was instructed on various homicide offenses, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder (with express malice, implied malice, and felony murder based on discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner), and voluntary manslaughter.
- The jury convicted Robertson of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon, finding true allegations that he personally used and discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury or death.
- Robertson appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, contending, among other arguments, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on second-degree felony murder because the predicate offense (discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner) should have merged with the homicide under the People v. Ireland doctrine.
- A majority of the Court of Appeal agreed with Robertson that the second-degree felony-murder instruction was erroneous due to the merger doctrine, but nonetheless affirmed the judgment, finding the error harmless.
- The remaining justice on the Court of Appeal concurred in the judgment only, concluding it was unnecessary to address the merger doctrine given the harmless error finding.
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 merger doctrine preclude a jury instruction on second-degree felony murder when the predicate felony is discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, § 246.3) and the defendant claims an intent to frighten, rather than to injure or kill?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C.J.
No, the merger doctrine did not bar the instruction on second-degree felony murder based upon the predicate offense of discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner. The second-degree felony-murder rule eliminates the need for proof of malice, making defenses like provocation or imperfect self-defense irrelevant. The merger doctrine, from People v. Ireland, prevents felonious assaults from automatically elevating to murder by merging with the resulting homicide. However, People v. Mattison established an exception for felonies committed with a 'collateral and independent felonious design.' While People v. Hansen expressed reservations about this test, the court here finds it the 'most appropriate framework' for this case. Robertson's purpose of firing to 'frighten away' the individuals stealing his hubcaps was a purpose collateral to the resulting homicide, thus making the felony-murder instruction permissible. The court emphasized that the deterrent purpose of the felony-murder rule is served by applying it to the grossly negligent discharge of a firearm, as injury or death is reasonably foreseeable, thereby deterring such reckless acts. The court dismissed concerns about anomalies as inherent to the felony-murder rule's premise.
Concurring - Moreno, J.
No, the merger doctrine does not preclude the offense of willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner from serving as a predicate felony for second-degree felony murder. Justice Moreno concurred with the majority's specific application of current law, agreeing that discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner is inherently dangerous and thus an eligible predicate felony. However, he expressed significant reservations about the continued viability of the entire second-degree felony-murder doctrine, which is a judge-made rule with no express statutory basis. He highlighted widespread criticism of the felony-murder rule for eroding the link between criminal liability and moral culpability. He pointed out the irony that defendants, by denying intent to kill, might inadvertently make it easier for the prosecution to secure a murder conviction via felony-murder, thereby bypassing the need to prove malice and precluding malice-based defenses. While he did not reach a firm conclusion given the issue was not fully briefed, he signaled his intention to closely reexamine the doctrine in future appropriate cases.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes, the merger doctrine should have barred the instruction on second-degree felony murder because the defendant did not act with a felonious purpose independent of the killing. Justice Kennard argued the majority misapplied the 'collateral and independent felonious design' test. An intent to scare someone by shooting is not 'independent' of the homicide, as it resembles the intent for assault, which the Ireland merger rule aimed to prevent from escalating to murder. Moreover, an intent to scare is not 'felonious' in the context of a statute prohibiting grossly negligent conduct. This application creates 'absurd' and 'twisted' legal outcomes: a defendant who intended to kill but acted in imperfect self-defense or heat of passion might be guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, while one who merely intended to scare would face strict liability for second-degree murder. This undermines legislative intent for graded homicide offenses and the role of malice-negating defenses. Justice Kennard found this error prejudicial.
Dissenting - Werdegar, J.
Yes, the merger doctrine should have precluded the offense of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm from serving as a predicate felony. Justice Werdegar, while having previously supported the 'collateral and independent felonious design' test, concluded that the inconsistencies created by applying it to assaultive conduct are too severe and can lead to injustice. She argued it is fundamentally unfair that a defendant intending to kill (but acting in unreasonable self-defense) could be convicted of only voluntary manslaughter, while one merely intending to scare would face strict murder liability. She asserted that the 'independent and collateral purposes' in Mattison must be limited to nonassaultive conduct to avoid such anomalies. She also agreed with Justices Brown and Moreno regarding the need to reexamine the nonstatutory second-degree felony-murder rule and advocated for its narrow application to avoid an unnecessary divergence between culpability and punishment.
Dissenting - Brown, J.
Yes, the merger doctrine should have prevented the application of the second-degree felony-murder rule in this case. Justice Brown strongly criticized the second-degree felony-murder rule as an 'anachronistic,' 'artificial,' and 'disfavored' doctrine plagued by 'fitful and erratic' jurisprudence. She rejected the 'collateral and independent felonious design' test as artificial and previously criticized. She found the quantitative analysis for the 'subversion of legislative intent' rationale to be flawed and irrelevant. She argued that the rule is problematic because it 'relieves the People of the need to prove malice because the defendant asserts he did not harbor any,' making it incompatible with a system of careful gradations of liability, especially in morally ambiguous cases. Justice Brown advocated for the complete abandonment of the nonstatutory second-degree felony-murder rule, suggesting that malice could still be proven through circumstantial evidence when dangerous felonies result in death.
Analysis:
This case is significant for reaffirming the 'collateral and independent felonious design' test from People v. Mattison as a primary framework for determining the applicability of the merger doctrine to second-degree felony murder. It effectively expands the reach of the second-degree felony-murder rule to certain killings resulting from 'grossly negligent' felonies, so long as the underlying purpose for the felony (e.g., to frighten) is deemed independent of the fatal result. The vigorous dissenting and concurring opinions, particularly those calling for a reexamination or outright abolition of the nonstatutory second-degree felony-murder rule, highlight a significant and ongoing tension within California's homicide law. This indicates potential future challenges to the doctrine's validity, scope, and its consistency with principles of moral culpability and legislative intent in defining criminal liability for homicide.
