No, the surviving robber is not guilty of murder. The court explained that the special 'felony-murder' rule exists to punish criminals for killings they or their partners commit. Here, the victim did the killing to stop the robbery, not to help it. It wouldn't be fair to charge the robber with murder just because the victim fought back and killed his partner. The robber isn't responsible for the victim's actions.

Yes, he should be guilty. This judge argued that when you commit an armed robbery, you create a dangerous situation where someone is likely to get killed. It was the robber's actions that caused the death, so he should be responsible for it, no matter who actually fired the gun. The judge worried this ruling would encourage criminals to carry guns because they'd face fewer consequences.

No, the robber is not guilty of murder if the person getting robbed kills someone. The law is supposed to stop robbers from accidentally killing people themselves, not to punish them for what robbery victims do. The court said it wouldn't be fair to blame robbers for murder when someone else did the killing, even if the killing happened because of the robbery. So, they overturned Washington's murder conviction.

The court's decision will encourage robbers to use weapons without worrying about a murder charge if the victim fights back and kills someone. This gets rid of an important reason not to commit armed robberies. When robbers threaten people with weapons, they should be responsible for any deaths that happen as a result, even if the victim is the one who does the killing. Robbers can avoid this by giving up or not using weapons. It's wrong to let robbers off the hook just based on how their victims react.

The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for killings they commit

—the "felony-murder rule has been criticized on the grounds that in almost all cases in which it is applied it is unnecessary and that it erodes the relation between criminal liability and moral culpability."

—the California Supreme Court held that for a defendant to be guilty of murder under the felony murder rule, the act of killing must be committed by defendant or his accomplice acting in furtherance of their common design.

Such malice is implied under Penal Code section 188 when the defendant or his accomplice `for a base, antisocial motive and with wanton disregard for human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will result in death

We have concluded that the utilization of the felony-murder rule in circumstances such as those before us extends the operation of that rule `beyond any rational function it is designed to serve

"The felony-murder doctrine ascribes malice aforethought to the felon who kills in the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony.... That doctrine is incorporated in section 189... which provides in part: `All murder... committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate... robbery... is murder of the first degree

An essential element of murder, except when the common law felony-murder doctrine is applicable, is an intent to kill or an intent with conscious disregard of life to commit acts likely to kill

Rather, application of the felony-murder rule in the case of arson is consistent with the traditional purpose of the felony-murder rule: deterring people from committing those felonies that present a heightened risk of death to others by transforming the felony offense sought to be deterred into first-degree murder if a person is killed in the course of the felony, even though …

—the defendant was convicted of murder under the felony-murder doctrine for participating in a robbery in which his accomplice was killed by the victim of the robbery.

If the killing is not committed by the defendant or an accomplice, however, the felony murder doctrine does not apply

No. A defendant is not guilty of murder under the felony-murder rule when his accomplice is killed by the victim of the felony. The court reasoned that Penal Code § 189, which codifies the felony-murder rule, requires that the felon or his accomplice commit the killing to perpetrate the felony. In this case, the killing was committed by the victim to thwart the felony, not in its perpetration. The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter felons from killing, even accidentally, by holding them strictly responsible for killings they or their accomplices commit. This purpose is not served by punishing felons for killings committed by their victims, as this would make criminal liability turn on the 'fortuitous circumstance' of a victim's response rather than the felon's own conduct.

Yes. A surviving felon should be guilty of murder when his accomplice is killed by the victim. The dissent argued that by undertaking an armed robbery, the felons initiate a chain of events where a killing is a foreseeable and direct causal result. The malice aforethought is implied from the heinous nature of the underlying felony itself. The dissent contended that the majority's decision removes a significant deterrent to armed felonies and that a robber who creates such a dangerous situation should be held responsible for any death that results, regardless of who fires the fatal shot.

No, the felony-murder rule does not apply when the killing is committed by the victim rather than the robber or his accomplice. The rule exists to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally themselves, not to punish them for killings committed by their victims in response to the felony. When a victim resists and kills, the robber does not commit the killing in perpetration of the felony even if the robbery and killing are closely connected in time. Holding felons strictly liable for their victims' actions would expand the rule beyond its purpose and erode the relation between criminal liability and moral culpability. The rule should not be extended beyond any rational function it is designed to serve. Therefore, the first degree murder conviction is reversed.

The majority's decision will encourage robbers to arm themselves without fear of a murder conviction unless they pull the trigger, since they are now absolved of responsibility if the victim resists and kills. This removes a meaningful deterrent to armed felonies. The robber's malicious conduct in undertaking an armed robbery where a foreseeable risk of death exists should make him liable for any killings, even if committed by the victim. The robber has control over such a killing by surrendering or not using a weapon. The majority's rule improperly discriminates between robbers based on the victims' responses rather than the robbers' own conduct in creating the perilous situation.

People v. Washington

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot