Detroit: One 43 y.o. Female CCW'er vs Two BGs -- Care to Guess Who Wins?

[M. Sage]

I'd say probably not. I don't know if this applies in Michigan, but in most jurisdictions a felon can't be guilty of murder if the person that died is a co-felon who was shot by the police or a victim defending themselves.

You'd be incorrect. The felony murder rule absolutely applies in this situation.

[snobord99]

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

For a 2008 case of someone being charged in CA w/felony murder because the person they were street racing against lost control of his car, crashed into another car (w/a family in it), and died, see: http://www.articlesbase.com/personal...nt-695206.html
"He was charged with one felony count of murder with the special allegation of causing great bodily injury, one felony count of vehicular manslaughter and four counts of felony reckless driving causing injury, as well as misdemeanor street racing."

Be sure to pass that along to anyone you know who likes racing on the streets. Tell them to sign up for a track day instead.

Remember this the next time you're tempted to race/harass someone who's driving like a jerk.

You'd be incorrect. The felony murder rule absolutely applies in this situation.

Sorry, you're both wrong. Where the killed is a co-felon and the killer is a victim or LEO (this fact pattern is important), there is no felony murder in most jurisdictions. This is an exception to the felony murder rule. See People v. Washington, 62 Cal. 2d 777 (1965) (where CA Supremes first recognized the exception). Again, I know it applies in most jurisdictions but have no idea if it applies in Michigan.

Edit: Actually, Sage, you might be right if you're in TX. I have no idea if the exception is recognized there .

[gunsmith]

well, I hope the bad guy has learned his lesson!

I hope the dead guy has learned his lesson and will now be a nice guy

[GaryV]

Sorry, you're both wrong. Where the killed is a co-felon and the killer is a victim or LEO (this fact pattern is important), there is no felony murder in most jurisdictions. This is an exception to the felony murder rule. See People v. Washington, 62 Cal. 2d 777 (1965) (where CA Supremes first recognized the exception). Again, I know it applies in most jurisdictions but have no idea if it applies in Michigan.

Edit: Actually, Sage, you might be right if you're in TX. I have no idea if the exception is recognized there .

You're correct - felony murder would apply in some jurisdictions and not in others. Looking through Michigan laws it appears that felony murder would not apply in this case. Michigan makes felony murder a mandatory life sentence, but appears to require that the criminal actively commit the crime of murder during the commission of a qualifying felony, not simply that someone die as a result of the underlying felony.

[Seesm]

I do not care WHAT she looks like she is HOT in my book...

Good shooting lady!!

I less BG in the world. (THE way it SHOULD be)

[Paladin]

Sorry, you're both wrong. Where the killed is a co-felon and the killer is a victim or LEO (this fact pattern is important), there is no felony murder in most jurisdictions. This is an exception to the felony murder rule. See People v. Washington, 62 Cal. 2d 777 (1965) (where CA Supremes first recognized the exception). Again, I know it applies in most jurisdictions but have no idea if it applies in Michigan.

Oh yeah, the old Redline exception. Forgot about that. I'll refund my fee.

[a1c]

What you're thinking about for CA is actually not exactly felony murder, although it's related. It's called the Provocative Act doctrine, a form of transferred intent.

I know personally a DA who used this law to charge and prosecute a case but he failed to get a conviction on that count.

Truth is, it is rarely charged in CA (I think you can count on the finger of two hands the number of cases where it was charged, and probably on one the number of cases that went to trial and where there was a conviction on that count), because most juries have a tough time buying it. Most DAs won't take that chance and will stick with less exotic charges.

[snobord99]

What you're thinking about for CA is actually not exactly felony murder, although it's related. It's called the Provocative Act doctrine, a form of transferred intent.

I know personally a DA who used this law to charge and prosecute a case but he failed to get a conviction on that count.

Truth is, it is rarely charged in CA (I think you can count on the finger of two hands the number of cases where it was charged, and probably on one the number of cases that went to trial and where there was a conviction on that count), because most juries have a tough time buying it. Most DAs won't take that chance and will stick with less exotic charges.

Not exactly. What I'm talking about is an exception to both felony murder and the Provocative Act Doctrine (PAD). Under this specific fact pattern (co-felon killed by intended victim or LEO), the charge won't even reach the jury since they can't be legally guilty. PAD applies if the person killed was an innocent bystander whereas here, the person killed is a co-felon.

What you're talking about under PAD is that they're not likely to be found to be factually guilty but there's still a law under which they can be prosecuted. In the case of the co-felon, even if you could find a jury to say "yea, they should be guilty" they can't be convicted because no "legal" murder occurred.

In other words, it's neither felony murder nor PAD, it's an exception/exclusion to both.

[a1c]

Not exactly. What I'm talking about is an exception to both felony murder and the Provocative Act Doctrine (PAD). Under this specific fact pattern (co-felon killed by intended victim or LEO), the charge won't even reach the jury since they can't be legally guilty. PAD applies if the person killed was an innocent bystander whereas here, the person killed is a co-felon.

No. PAD can apply to a "co-felon." I can cite two recent CA cases where PAD was used to charge someone with the murder of their accomplice: Chad O'Connell and Renato Hughes.

[Meplat]

If a .22 is what you got it's what you use. A .22 will take the mind of most perps off what they wanted to do to you and on where the nearest emergency room is located.

A .22 will drop someone if it hits just the right place, and a 44mag might not drop someone if it's not in the right place. Plus, she's shooting at a moving target under stress. She did damn well in my book.

[snobord99]

No. PAD can apply to a "co-felon." I can cite two recent CA cases where PAD was used to charge someone with the murder of their accomplice: Chad O'Connell and Renato Hughes.

I think you're right. I was under the impression that CA was amongst the majority jurisdictions where the exception was applicable. Apparently, CA's one of the few jurisdictions where it isn't.

Funny thing is the CA Supreme Court case that established PAD in CA came out less than 7 months after the same court said that this doesn't qualify for felony murder.

Learn something new every day. Thanks!

[a1c]

I think you're right. I was under the impression that CA was amongst the majority jurisdictions where the exception was applicable. Apparently, CA's one of the few jurisdictions where it isn't.

Funny thing is the CA Supreme Court case that established PAD in CA came out less than 7 months after the same court said that this doesn't qualify for felony murder.

Learn something new every day. Thanks!

Check out Maryland too. They have a somewhat similar statute, but I really don't know much about it.

[bruceflinch]

I love these stories w/ a Happy Ending!

[devildog999]

Good for her

[DougJ]

She did great, obviously.

Whatever her weapon of choice was it did exactly what is was designed to do, she still standing and the bad guys caused her no harm. The fact that one of them will never cause anyone any harm again is a pretty nice bonus.