simple Criminal law hypo giving me trouble Forum

[paulshortys10]

D1 is the lookout for D2 who goes into a house looking to steal, which he knows is occupied, looking to steal whatever is inside while people sleep. While D2 is stealing, the old man owner of the house sees him, has a heart attack and dies. Also, while D2 is in the house, D1 is waiting in the car, and someone approaches him, and he shoots him.

Analyze under Felony murder, Conspiracy, and Accomplice liability for both parties.

[gdane]

What exactly is giving you problems? The short answer is that there's liability all.around. But this isn't a difficult hypo so I'd like you to figure out why there's liability all around.

[Bronck]

For CL, felony-murder may not necessarily apply, depends on jurisd (was burglary enumerated like in CA? are you looking at in the abstract (minority)? are you looking at the specific facts?)

If it applies, then liability extends to accomplices.

Just go through the elements for conspiratorial and accomplice liability. This isn't exactly a complex one.

[paulshortys10]

I''m wondering if the D1 in the car, whether he's liable for the death inside the house through accomplice liability or through felony murder (assume we're in jurisdiction where going into house with intent to steal shit is a felony)

[Bronck]

D1 as escape driver/lookout = physical assistance
D1 intended for his actions to assist D2 engage in burglary and D1 wanted the house to be robbed.

Jurisdiction 1 lists burglary as an enumerated crime that triggers felony murder (e.g., CA) ==> D2 liable for murder and D1 liable for murder through accomplice liability

Jurisdiction 2 doesn't enumerate crimes that trigger felony murder, but follows the minority "in the abstract" approach ==> D2 not liable for murder b/c burglary can be committed in non-dangerous manners (e.g., you may enter the dwelling to commit larceny, not rape) ==> D1 not liable

Jurisdiction 3 doesn't enumerate crimes that trigger felony murder, but follows the majority approach (look to the specific facts) ==> D2 not liable for murder b/c the felony wasn't committed in a way that creates a foreseeable risk of death (e.g., he wasn't using a weapon) ==> D1 not liable

[paulshortys10]

D1 as escape driver/lookout = physical assistance
D1 intended for his actions to assist D2 engage in burglary and D1 wanted the house to be robbed.

Jurisdiction 1 lists burglary as an enumerated crime that triggers felony murder (e.g., CA) ==> D2 liable for murder and D1 liable for murder through accomplice liability

Jurisdiction 2 doesn't enumerate crimes that trigger felony murder, but follows the minority "in the abstract" approach ==> D2 not liable for murder b/c burglary can be committed in non-dangerous manners (e.g., you may enter the dwelling to commit larceny, not rape) ==> D1 not liable

Jurisdiction 3 doesn't enumerate crimes that trigger felony murder, but follows the majority approach (look to the specific facts) ==> D2 not liable for murder b/c the felony wasn't committed in a way that creates a foreseeable risk of death (e.g., he wasn't using a weapon) ==> D1 not liable

you've answered my question. Thank you