How have courts interpreted the felony-murder instruction in cases involving assault with a deadly weapon?

Properly understood, the instruction permitted the jury to find defendant guilty of second degree murder if they found only that the homicide was committed in the perpetration of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. (See People v. Phillips

Page 498

In our recent decision of People v. Ireland (1969) 70 A.C. 557, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580 ^*, we held an identical instruction to be improper on the ground that it went beyond any 'rational function' that the felony-murder rule was intended to serve. 'To allow such use of the felony-murder rule would effectively preclude the jury from considering the issue of malice aforethought in all cases wherein homicide has been committed as a result of a felonious assault--a category which includes the great majority of all homicides. This kind of bootstrapping finds support neither in logic nor in law. We therefore hold that a second degree felony-murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the [1 Cal.3d 438] prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charged.' (Fn. omitted.) (Id. at p. 750, 75 Cal.Rptr. at p. 198, 450 P.2d at p. 590.)