State v. Canola
73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20 (1977)
Rule of Law:
Under the New Jersey felony murder statute, a felon is not criminally liable for murder when a co-felon is killed by a person resisting the commission of the felony. The statute requires that the killing be committed by the felon or an accomplice acting in furtherance of the felony (the agency theory), not by a third party.
Facts:
- The defendant, along with three confederates including one named Lloredo, attempted to commit an armed robbery of a jewelry store.
- During the robbery, the store owner and his employee resisted the perpetrators.
- A physical skirmish ensued between the store owner and Lloredo.
- A second conspirator, called upon for assistance by Lloredo, began shooting.
- The store owner returned fire in response.
- In the exchange of gunfire, both the store owner and the co-felon, Lloredo, were fatally shot.
- The shot that killed Lloredo was fired by the store owner.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was indicted in the trial court on two counts of murder, for the deaths of the robbery victim and his co-felon, Lloredo.
- The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the murder count related to the death of the co-felon.
- A jury found the defendant guilty on both murder counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent life terms.
- Defendant appealed his convictions to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction for the murder of the robbery victim.
- In a split decision, the Appellate Division majority affirmed the conviction for the murder of the co-felon.
- Defendant appealed the conviction for the co-felon's murder to the New Jersey Supreme Court, an appeal he was entitled to as of right due to the dissent in the lower appellate court.
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 New Jersey's felony murder statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:113-1, impose liability on a defendant for the death of his co-felon when the co-felon is fatally shot by a victim resisting the felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Conford, P. J. A. D.
No. The felony murder rule does not extend to a killing directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise. The court adopts the agency theory of felony murder, which requires the killing to be done by the defendant or an accomplice in furtherance of the felony. The court reasoned that the common law felony murder rule was historically limited to acts by the felons themselves. The statute's 'ensues clause' ('or if the death of anyone ensues') does not compel a broader 'proximate cause' interpretation, as it can be read to clarify that accidental killings by the felon are included or that accomplices are also liable. Furthermore, the concluding phrase of the statute, 'then such person so killing is guilty of murder,' fortifies the view that liability is restricted to the person 'so killing,' i.e., the felon or his agents. The court noted that most jurisdictions follow the agency theory and that modern jurisprudence favors restricting, not expanding, the felony murder rule.
Dissenting - Hughes, C. J.
Yes. A felon should be held liable for any death that is a proximate result of the felony under the 'ensues clause' of the statute. The dissent argued that the only logical interpretation of the 'ensues clause' is to extend criminal liability to any death proximately caused by the initiation of the felony. Resistance by a victim or police, and any resulting deaths, are foreseeable consequences within the contemplation of one who initiates a violent felony, and the felon should be held responsible for that chain of events.
Concurring - Sullivan, J.
No. A felon should not be held liable for the murder of a co-felon because the death of a co-felon at the hands of a victim can be classified as a justifiable homicide, which is not within the purview of the felony murder statute. However, the concurrence disagreed with the majority's broad reasoning, arguing that the legislative intent is to hold a felon liable for the death of an innocent person or police officer killed by a third party during the crime. The author expressed concern that the majority's holding would absolve felons of responsibility for such innocent deaths and urged the legislature to clarify the statute.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the 'agency theory' of felony murder as the law in New Jersey, aligning the state with the majority of American jurisdictions. By rejecting the broader 'proximate cause' theory, the court significantly limited the scope of felony murder liability. The ruling prevents prosecutors from charging a felon with murder for a death caused by a victim or law enforcement officer acting in resistance to the crime. This places the onus on the state legislature to explicitly amend the statute if it wishes to expand liability to cover such killings.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Canola (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"