Does the felony-murder rule apply to a burglary where the offender entered a building with an intent to assault his victim with a deadly weapon?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Wilson, 1 Cal.3d 431, 462 P.2d 22, 82 Cal.Rptr. 494 (Cal. 1969):

'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.' (People v. Washington (1965) 62 Cal.2d 777, 781, 44 Cal.Rptr. 442, 445, 402 P.2d 130, 133.) Where a person enters a building with an intent to assault his victim with a deadly weapon, he is not deterred by the felony-murder rule. That doctrine can serve its purpose only when applied to a felony independent of the homicide. In Ireland, we reasoned that a man assaulting another with a deadly weapon could not be deterred by the second degree felony-murder rule, since the assault was an integral part of the homicide. Here, the only distinction is that the assault and homicide occurred inside a dwelling so that the underlying felony is burglary based on an intention to assault with a deadly weapon, rather than simply assault with a deadly weapon.

We do not suggest that no relevant differences exist between crimes committed inside and outside dwellings. We have often recognized that persons within dwellings are in greater peril from intruders bent on stealing or engaging in other felonious conduct. (See, e.g., People v. Talbot (1966) supra, 64 Cal.2d 691, 703, 51 Cal.Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633.) Persons within dwellings are more likely to resist and less likely to be able to avoid the consequences of crimes committed inside their homes. However, this [1 Cal.3d 441] rationale does not justify application of the felony-murder rule to the case at bar. Where the intended felony of the burglar is an assault with a deadly weapon, the likelihood of homicide from the lethal weapon is not significantly increased by the site of the assault. Furthermore, the burglary statute in this state includes within its definition numerous structures other than dwellings as to which there can be no conceivable basis for distinguishing between an assault with a deadly weapon outdoors and a burglary in which the felonious intent is solely to assault with a deadly weapon. 3

Other Questions


Does a jury's acquittal of an assault with a deadly weapon constitute an acquittal on the assault charge or a finding of not guilty of assault with deadly weapon? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a prior assault with a deadly weapon was an assault with deadly weapon or an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury? (California, United States of America)
Is a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon reduced from assault with deadly weapon to simple assault? (California, United States of America)
Does the multiple victim exception apply to assault with a deadly weapon? (California, United States of America)
Does section 654 (assault with a deadly weapon) apply to the act of shooting the victim in the knee? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between assault with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to commit murder? (California, United States of America)
If assault requires the intent to injure the victim, can assault be a specific intent crime? (California, United States of America)
Can the felony-murder rule be applied to a charge of assault and murder in a case where appellant entered the home with intent to commit assault or murder? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury reasonably find that assault with a deadly weapon is not an assault with intent? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury have to consider the definition of "deadly weapon" in their instructions to the jury on the crime of assault with a deadly weapon? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.