Yes, the killing counts as part of the robbery. The court explained that a crime like robbery doesn't just end the moment the item is stolen. The escape is part of the whole event. Since the shooting happened while the robbers were trying to get away, it's all considered one continuous criminal act, which means the first-degree murder charge was appropriate.

Yes, the court decided that a killing that happens while someone is running away from a robbery is still considered to have happened "during" the robbery, making it a first-degree murder. The court looked at similar past cases where deaths during escape from other crimes, like burglary, were treated the same way. So, even though they were a block away, their escape was still part of the robbery. The court also reviewed other complaints Miller had about his trial, such as how jurors were picked or what evidence was allowed. In most cases, the court found that any mistakes made by the judge were not big enough to change the verdict because there was strong evidence against Miller.

Yes, a killing that occurs during the perpetrator's flight from a robbery constitutes a killing in the perpetration of that robbery. The court reasoned that the robbery and the subsequent flight and homicide are part of a single, continuous criminal incident. Citing precedents like State v. Anthony and State v. West, the court affirmed that the felony murder doctrine extends to events that occur during the escape phase immediately following the underlying felony. Therefore, the homicide was properly considered part of the perpetration of the robbery, warranting the first-degree murder charge.

Yes, a homicide committed during the perpetrators' flight from a robbery occurs "in the perpetration of the robbery" for the purpose of first-degree murder. The court affirmed Miller's conviction, drawing upon precedents like *State v. Anthony*, which held that a homicide occurring during flight after an aggravated burglary qualified, and *State v. West*, which found a killing committed during an armed robbery to be part of a "single criminal incident" even when the victim was taken to another location. The court concluded that because the homicide in the instant case occurred during Miller's flight from the robbery scene, it was indeed committed "during the perpetration of the robbery." The court also addressed several other assignments of error by the defendant, including challenges to jury selection due to opposition to capital punishment (dismissed because the death penalty was not imposed), refusal to allow rehabilitation of a prospective juror (deemed harmless error as the State did not exhaust its peremptory challenges), exclusion of hearsay testimony about the victim's initial description of perpetrators (deemed harmless as the victim testified and other evidence corroborated guilt), denial of a mistrial motion after an improper prosecutorial remark (deemed properly denied given the judge's admonition and other evidence), cross-examination of character witnesses about prior arrests (found to have followed the *State v. Johnson* guidelines), reasonable doubt jury instruction (found acceptable in context of the full charge), and instruction on prior convictions (deemed harmless error). In each instance, the court found no reversible error, often citing the harmless nature of any procedural misstep in light of the overwhelming evidence against Miller.

State v. Miller

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Gulotta, Judge

Analysis: