Felony Murder

Transferred intent is the theoretical backbone of this charge. The malice necessary for a murder conviction is borrowed from the intent to commit the underlying felony. If the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to commit a robbery, that malicious intent is legally transferred to the accidental shooting of a clerk or the heart attack of a bystander.

This relieves the prosecution of the burden of proving the defendant’s mental state regarding the death. We focus our defense on severing this link. If we can demonstrate that the defendant did not form the intent to commit the primary felony, or that the felony was not legally in progress when the death occurred, the transfer of intent fails and the murder charge must be dismissed.

Not every crime supports a felony murder charge. Most jurisdictions limit the rule to inherently dangerous felonies. These are often memorized by law students using the mnemonic BARRK: Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery and Kidnapping. However, state statutes vary and can include drug trafficking, escape from custody or sexual abuse of a child.

The classification of the underlying crime is a critical point of contention. We aggressively challenge whether the specific actions of the defendant meet the statutory elements of the predicate felony. For instance, if a theft does not rise to the level of a robbery because force was not used, it may not support a felony murder conviction, reducing the exposure significantly.

For the rule to apply, the death must occur within the res gestae, or the logical continuation, of the felony. This means there must be a close temporal and spatial connection between the felony and the death. A death that occurs days later or miles away may be too attenuated to sustain the charge.

The concept of when a felony ends is complex. Prosecutors argue that the felony continues through the escape phase until the perpetrators have reached a place of temporary safety. We litigate the precise timeline of events to argue that the felony had concluded before the death occurred, thereby breaking the causal chain required for the rule to apply.

The prosecution must often prove that a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have foreseen the possibility of death. This is a subjective and objective battleground. If our client believed the robbery would be committed with a toy gun or no weapon at all, we argue that lethal force was not a foreseeable consequence of the agreement.

We present evidence of the defendant’s limited knowledge and lack of intent to demonstrate that the co-defendant’s decision to kill was an independent, intervening act that strayed from the common design. Breaking the line of foreseeability is essential to saving a non-shooter from a murder conviction.

There is a growing trend in some jurisdictions to limit the scope of felony murder liability for those who did not kill or intend to kill. Reforms such as those seen in California now require that a participant must have been a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

This shifts the focus to the defendant’s actual behavior and mental state. We utilize these evolving standards to file motions to dismiss for clients who were merely present or played a peripheral role. We argue that their conduct does not rise to the level of reckless indifference required by modern statutes, distinguishing them from the actual perpetrator.

Jurisdictions differ on who must fire the fatal shot. Under the agency theory, the felony murder rule only applies if the killing was committed by one of the felons. If a police officer shoots a bystander or a co-conspirator, the surviving defendant cannot be charged with murder.

Conversely, under the proximate cause theory, a defendant is liable for any death set in motion by their dangerous acts, regardless of who pulled the trigger. We conduct extensive legal research to determine the controlling precedent in the relevant jurisdiction. If the agency theory applies, we work to prove that the fatal bullet came from a gun outside the control of the criminal group.

Being present at the scene of a crime is not a crime in itself. The prosecution must prove active participation. We frequently defend individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time passengers in a car who did not know a robbery was planned, or friends who waited outside unaware of the violence unfolding inside.

We use surveillance footage, text message records and witness testimony to establish that our client lacked the shared intent required for the underlying felony. If we can prove mere presence without participation, the foundation of the felony murder charge collapses.

We also look for superseding intervening causes that break the chain of liability. If the victim died from a medical error at the hospital or a pre-existing condition unrelated to the stress of the crime, the felony murder charge may be improper.

This requires the engagement of forensic pathologists to review the autopsy and medical records. We challenge the medical examiner’s findings to show that the death was not a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s actions, but rather the result of an independent and unforeseeable event.

The merger doctrine is a technical legal defense that prevents the felony murder rule from applying when the underlying felony is an integral part of the homicide itself, such as assault. If every assault resulting in death were treated as felony murder, it would eliminate the distinction between manslaughter and murder.

We argue that the underlying conduct merges with the killing and therefore cannot support a separate felony murder instruction. This forces the prosecution to prove actual malice or premeditation, which is a much higher burden of proof and allows for the possibility of lesser included offenses like manslaughter.

Many states provide a statutory affirmative defense for accomplices. To utilize this, the defendant must prove four elements: they did not commit the homicidal act; they were not armed with a deadly weapon; they had no reasonable ground to believe any other participant was armed; and they had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death.

This is the I didn’t know defense. We prepare our clients to testify or present evidence showing their complete lack of knowledge regarding the weapon or the violent tendencies of their co-defendants. This defense can lead to a complete acquittal on the murder charge even if the defendant is convicted of the robbery.

In many jurisdictions, the judge has no discretion to lower the sentence for felony murder. A conviction triggers an automatic life sentence. This reality dictates our litigation strategy; we must win on the guilt phase because we cannot rely on judicial leniency at sentencing.

However, we also prepare a mitigation package from day one. We gather character letters, employment history and psychological evaluations to humanize the client. In jurisdictions that allow for indeterminate sentencing or youthful offender consideration, this evidence is vital for securing a chance at parole after decades of incarceration.

Because the risk of trial is so high, plea bargaining is a central component of the defense. Our goal is often to secure a plea to the underlying felony or to voluntary manslaughter, removing the murder charge entirely.

We leverage evidentiary weaknesses such as shaky witness identification or lack of physical evidence linking the client to the scene to force the prosecutor to the table. By demonstrating the risk that a jury might acquit based on the affirmative defense, we negotiate resolutions that avoid life sentences and provide a light at the end of the tunnel for our clients.