Felony Murder Rule-Remote consequence Forum

[framirz]

A, B, and C conspired to commit burglary. A panicked and shot and killed the guard during the comission of the burglary. The guard's mother receives a phone call and is informed her son has been shot and killed and then she suffers a heart attack and dies. So far I understand that probably A,B, and C are going to be "hanged" for the 1st degree murder of the guard. However, I'm kind of stuck on the liability of the dead mother. I want to say that the mother's death was not reasonably forseeable and was not a natural consequence of the intended burglary? but then again, had it not been for defendant's burglary and killing of the guard, the mother would still be alive. Little help, please!

[moonman157]

A, B, and C conspired to commit burglary. A panicked and shot and killed the guard during the comission of the burglary. The guard's mother receives a phone call and is informed her son has been shot and killed and then she suffers a heart attack and dies. So far I understand that probably A,B, and C are going to be "hanged" for the 1st degree murder of the guard. However, I'm kind of stuck on the liability of the dead mother. I want to say that the mother's death was not reasonably forseeable and was not a natural consequence of the intended burglary? but then again, had it not been for defendant's burglary and killing of the guard, the mother would still be alive. Little help, please!

There is a high likelihood that I am screwing this up, but didn't Palsgraf establish foreseeability as a necessary component of proximate cause? You're right that but-for the felony, the deceased would not have died, but I think you still need foreseeability for Felony Murder (if my notes are correct). People v. Stamp, where it was the storeowner who has a heart attack, was still considered a strict reading of the Felony Murder Rule. I have a feeling that it wouldn't apply to someone hearing about the results of the felony, but it may depend on the jury. Maybe a way of looking at it is, did their felony make it more likely that this woman would die? (from King v. Commonwealth). I would say no. But like I said I'm probably wrong.

[encore1101]

I don't know what jurisdiction you're talking about, but do you have to say that the mother's death is felony-murder?

felony-murder #1: killing guard while burglarizing
murder in the second degree: causes death of mom with intent to cause the death of guard (ny doesn't recognize attempted murder in its felony-murder statute)

there have been ny cases that have upheld causation when a police officer gets a heart attack while chasing a defendant. what if a third party who watches police officer chase defendant gets a heart attack from all the excitement?

For criminal liability to attach, a defendant's actions must have been an actual contributory cause of death, in the sense that they "forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death." A defendant's acts need not be the sole cause of death; where the necessary causative link is established, other causes, such as a victim's preexisting condition, will not relieve the defendant of responsibility for homicide. By the same token, death need not follow on the heels of injury. Even an intervening, independent agency will not exonerate defendant unless “the death is solely attributable to the secondary agency, and not at all induced by the primary one."

An injury may trigger immediate measurable deterioration and a gradual process of dying for which defendant is responsible, but that is not to say that a victim who evidences no immediate decline cannot just as surely have been set by defendant's acts on a certain course to death.

To establish a causal connection, conclusions which are only “contingent, speculative, or merely possible” will not suffice, but neither is absolute certainty and the exclusion of every other possibility required.

Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270 (1984)

edit: I agree with the below poster; the analysis is more important than getting the right answer.

[arklaw13]

I'd say it's probably too remote. In any case, the answer isn't what's important. You're going to get points for analyzing the issue. Give the arguments in favor of the heart attack being a foreseeable result of the crime and give the arguments against it. Pick which ever way you lean towards as the most likely answer.

[framirz]

Thank you all for responses. It gives me confidence that answers can vary and there is not necessarily the perfect answer but a reasonable analysis/argument is what matters.

[MKC]

A, B, and C conspired to commit burglary. A panicked and shot and killed the guard during the comission of the burglary. The guard's mother receives a phone call and is informed her son has been shot and killed and then she suffers a heart attack and dies. So far I understand that probably A,B, and C are going to be "hanged" for the 1st degree murder of the guard. However, I'm kind of stuck on the liability of the dead mother. I want to say that the mother's death was not reasonably forseeable and was not a natural consequence of the intended burglary? but then again, had it not been for defendant's burglary and killing of the guard, the mother would still be alive. Little help, please!

This is an awfully specific hypo for exam season.

[sap]

In most jurisdictions, there's usually also a temporal relationship between the felony-murder rule and the actual crime - the crime still has to be meaningfully in progress (and the egress is usually part of the crime). In your hypo, it sounds like the crime is probably done by the time the cop is calling the mom, so that would be a factor you'd want to analyze.