Question on merger and felony murder. Forum

[Gamecubesupreme]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

[kellyfrost]

Felony murder would not be charged if all of the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. The underlying felony would merge with the killing.

So for robbery examine the elements and compare those to murder. If all of the elements of robbery are included in the elements of murder, then the defendant would only be charged with the murder.

I would be lead to believe that robbery and felony murder would be charged separately.

Where as assault and battery with a deadly weapon, all of the elements would be included in the murder. So if a killing took place during during the course of this crime, the defendant would only be charged with murder.

[THE_U]

Felony murder would not be charged if all of the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. The underlying felony would merge with the killing.

So for robbery examine the elements and compare those to murder. If all of the elements of robbery are included in the elements of murder, then the defendant would only be charged with the murder.

I would be lead to believe that robbery and felony murder would be charged separately.

Where as assault and battery with a deadly weapon, all of the elements would be included in the murder. So if a killing took place during during the course of this crime, the defendant would only be charged with murder.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.

Robbery is not a lesser-included offense of murder, so I don't know why the two would merge and thus why only felony murder would be charged.

Robbery was a "felony" at common law, so I wouldn't imagine it wouldn't merge under a felony-misdemeanor rationale either.

[Sue]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

[Sue]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Another lesser included offense is larceny. It is a lesser included offense of robbery, and one cannot be convicted of both robbery and larceny for a single incident.

[Gamecubesupreme]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

That's what I thought too, thanks! That mnemonics is pretty helpful lol.

[THE_U]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

[Sue]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

Sorry, arson, not assault. I don't know what I was thinking

But as to a defendant's being charged both robbery and felony murder, I don't agree with you, WADR. Because robbery is the underlying felony for felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the latter, merges into the greater offense - felony murder, and the defendant cannot be convicted of both.

[THE_U]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

Sorry, arson, not assault. I don't know what I was thinking

But as to a defendant's being charged both robbery and felony murder, I don't agree with you, WADR. Because robbery is the underlying felony for felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the latter, merges into the greater offense - felony murder, and the defendant cannot be convicted of both.

Take a look at this question. It deals with the exact issue we are debating. Defendant ends up being charged and convicted of the murder and underlying felony.

A clerk lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell the defendant a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. The defendant became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and the clerk was killed.

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the defendant is charged with murder and arson, he should be

A. convicted of both offenses.
B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
D. acquitted of both offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXPLANATION:

The correct answer is A. At common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be shown by having an intent to kill, or by having an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Malice can also be implied in actions that demonstrate gross recklessness toward human life. In addition, felony murder is the killing of someone during the commission of a violent felony. Arson is defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

In this case, the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling and, during the commission of that arson, caused the clerk's death. Additionally, the defendant acted with malice aforethought when he caused the clerk's death. Deliberately driving a car into a gasoline pump demonstrates a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life; this is sufficient for a finding of malice aforethought for the murder charge. The defendant could be convicted of either murder with malice aforethought or felony murder with arson as the underlying felony. In addition, the defendant's driving his vehicle into a gasoline pump also had the foreseeable consequences of igniting the gasoline, creating a ball of fire, and burning the building the clerk was in. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of both arson and murder.

Answer B is incorrect because the defendant's actions were not merely negligent, which would support only an involuntary manslaughter charge; they were done with the type of reckless disregard for human life that would qualify the clerk's homicide as murder committed with malice aforethought. In addition, answer B is incorrect because the defendant could be convicted of felony murder. Additionally, because the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling, he should also be convicted of arson. The charge of arson does not require an intentional setting of a fire. It is sufficient for the burning to be foreseeable from a defendant's action, such as deliberately driving a vehicle into gasoline pumps. Answer C is incorrect because the defendant committed murder, not involuntary manslaughter. Answer D is incorrect because the defendant committed both offenses.

[kellyfrost]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

Sorry, arson, not assault. I don't know what I was thinking

But as to a defendant's being charged both robbery and felony murder, I don't agree with you, WADR. Because robbery is the underlying felony for felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the latter, merges into the greater offense - felony murder, and the defendant cannot be convicted of both.

Take a look at this question. It deals with the exact issue we are debating. Defendant ends up being charged and convicted of the murder and underlying felony.

A clerk lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell the defendant a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. The defendant became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and the clerk was killed.

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the defendant is charged with murder and arson, he should be

A. convicted of both offenses.
B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
D. acquitted of both offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXPLANATION:

The correct answer is A. At common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be shown by having an intent to kill, or by having an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Malice can also be implied in actions that demonstrate gross recklessness toward human life. In addition, felony murder is the killing of someone during the commission of a violent felony. Arson is defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

In this case, the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling and, during the commission of that arson, caused the clerk's death. Additionally, the defendant acted with malice aforethought when he caused the clerk's death. Deliberately driving a car into a gasoline pump demonstrates a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life; this is sufficient for a finding of malice aforethought for the murder charge. The defendant could be convicted of either murder with malice aforethought or felony murder with arson as the underlying felony. In addition, the defendant's driving his vehicle into a gasoline pump also had the foreseeable consequences of igniting the gasoline, creating a ball of fire, and burning the building the clerk was in. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of both arson and murder.

Answer B is incorrect because the defendant's actions were not merely negligent, which would support only an involuntary manslaughter charge; they were done with the type of reckless disregard for human life that would qualify the clerk's homicide as murder committed with malice aforethought. In addition, answer B is incorrect because the defendant could be convicted of felony murder. Additionally, because the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling, he should also be convicted of arson. The charge of arson does not require an intentional setting of a fire. It is sufficient for the burning to be foreseeable from a defendant's action, such as deliberately driving a vehicle into gasoline pumps. Answer C is incorrect because the defendant committed murder, not involuntary manslaughter. Answer D is incorrect because the defendant committed both offenses.

So I think my above analysis is correct. No?

[THE_U]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

Sorry, arson, not assault. I don't know what I was thinking

But as to a defendant's being charged both robbery and felony murder, I don't agree with you, WADR. Because robbery is the underlying felony for felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the latter, merges into the greater offense - felony murder, and the defendant cannot be convicted of both.

Take a look at this question. It deals with the exact issue we are debating. Defendant ends up being charged and convicted of the murder and underlying felony.

A clerk lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell the defendant a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. The defendant became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and the clerk was killed.

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the defendant is charged with murder and arson, he should be

A. convicted of both offenses.
B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
D. acquitted of both offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXPLANATION:

The correct answer is A. At common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be shown by having an intent to kill, or by having an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Malice can also be implied in actions that demonstrate gross recklessness toward human life. In addition, felony murder is the killing of someone during the commission of a violent felony. Arson is defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

In this case, the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling and, during the commission of that arson, caused the clerk's death. Additionally, the defendant acted with malice aforethought when he caused the clerk's death. Deliberately driving a car into a gasoline pump demonstrates a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life; this is sufficient for a finding of malice aforethought for the murder charge. The defendant could be convicted of either murder with malice aforethought or felony murder with arson as the underlying felony. In addition, the defendant's driving his vehicle into a gasoline pump also had the foreseeable consequences of igniting the gasoline, creating a ball of fire, and burning the building the clerk was in. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of both arson and murder.

Answer B is incorrect because the defendant's actions were not merely negligent, which would support only an involuntary manslaughter charge; they were done with the type of reckless disregard for human life that would qualify the clerk's homicide as murder committed with malice aforethought. In addition, answer B is incorrect because the defendant could be convicted of felony murder. Additionally, because the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling, he should also be convicted of arson. The charge of arson does not require an intentional setting of a fire. It is sufficient for the burning to be foreseeable from a defendant's action, such as deliberately driving a vehicle into gasoline pumps. Answer C is incorrect because the defendant committed murder, not involuntary manslaughter. Answer D is incorrect because the defendant committed both offenses.

So I think my above analysis is correct. No?

Yep, it seems to be. The arson here is the same as a burglary, in the sense that they aren't lesser-included offenses/have no elements in common with murder.

[kellyfrost]

Does an underlying felony generally merge into the crime of felony murder in both traditional and modern law?

I know with felony and a misdemeanor, merger happens in traditional law, but not modern (only solicitation and attempt merge I believe).

But is felony murder different? Say you commit a robbery and murder. You can only be charged with felony murder under both traditional and modern law right?

Right. Because felony murder includes underlying robbery for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the defendant cannot be charged separately with both. Remember BARRK for felony murder - burglary, assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping. Because you need to establish elements for one of these felonies for felony murder, they are lesser included offenses for felony murder.

For inchoate crimes merger, I remember my friend Sam lol. SAM - Solicitation and Attempt Merge into the completed crime.

I think you have some definitions mixed up.

A lesser-included offense = a crime where all of its necessary elements are included in the more serious offense. A robbery has no elements in common with murder and would not be a lesser-included offense. It would be an underlying felony that is sufficient for the basis of felony murder.

Also, "assault" is not an underlying felony that would be sufficient for felony-murder, as you have listed. Assault would merge into the murder because it is a lesser-included offense. The underlying felonies that are typically sufficient are: Burglary, Arson (not assault), Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

And back to the original question: you would be charged with BOTH robbery + felony murder if robbery was the underlying felony. You might get acquitted of the murder charge. It wouldn't make sense that robbery would merge and that you couldn't be convicted of that entirely separate offense with separate elements just because you were found not-guilty on the murder charge.

Sorry, arson, not assault. I don't know what I was thinking

But as to a defendant's being charged both robbery and felony murder, I don't agree with you, WADR. Because robbery is the underlying felony for felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the latter, merges into the greater offense - felony murder, and the defendant cannot be convicted of both.

Take a look at this question. It deals with the exact issue we are debating. Defendant ends up being charged and convicted of the murder and underlying felony.

A clerk lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell the defendant a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. The defendant became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and the clerk was killed.

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the defendant is charged with murder and arson, he should be

A. convicted of both offenses.
B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
D. acquitted of both offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXPLANATION:

The correct answer is A. At common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be shown by having an intent to kill, or by having an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Malice can also be implied in actions that demonstrate gross recklessness toward human life. In addition, felony murder is the killing of someone during the commission of a violent felony. Arson is defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

In this case, the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling and, during the commission of that arson, caused the clerk's death. Additionally, the defendant acted with malice aforethought when he caused the clerk's death. Deliberately driving a car into a gasoline pump demonstrates a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life; this is sufficient for a finding of malice aforethought for the murder charge. The defendant could be convicted of either murder with malice aforethought or felony murder with arson as the underlying felony. In addition, the defendant's driving his vehicle into a gasoline pump also had the foreseeable consequences of igniting the gasoline, creating a ball of fire, and burning the building the clerk was in. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of both arson and murder.

Answer B is incorrect because the defendant's actions were not merely negligent, which would support only an involuntary manslaughter charge; they were done with the type of reckless disregard for human life that would qualify the clerk's homicide as murder committed with malice aforethought. In addition, answer B is incorrect because the defendant could be convicted of felony murder. Additionally, because the defendant maliciously burned the clerk's dwelling, he should also be convicted of arson. The charge of arson does not require an intentional setting of a fire. It is sufficient for the burning to be foreseeable from a defendant's action, such as deliberately driving a vehicle into gasoline pumps. Answer C is incorrect because the defendant committed murder, not involuntary manslaughter. Answer D is incorrect because the defendant committed both offenses.

So I think my above analysis is correct. No?

Yep, it seems to be. The arson here is the same as a burglary, in the sense that they aren't lesser-included offenses/have no elements in common with murder.

This thread has been a subtle reminder as to how difficult preparing for the bar exam is because of sheer amount of volume of information you must be able to retain and work the facts of the question with. If someone were to post a property related question, I would simply just have to shrug my shoulders and wouldn't even know where to begin.

[jrass]

Just practice MBE. Nobody really reads the essays anyway. If you hit 75% on the MBE, and discuss only the benefits of organic asparagus over non-organic asparagus from words 200-500 on every single essay, I promise you will pass. The people reading the essays are paid very little money, never have to release your scores unless you fail in which case they could add/not add for what they feel like and the job is very boring. You don't have to know much law at all. If you know that running somebody over is probably bad, and guns make things worse, you know enough law to get a perfect score.

[Sue]

Hmm. I would choose answer A too by elimination because there is definitely no involuntary manslaughter, and the defendant cannot be acquitted for both for sure, so that eliminates D as well.

This may be a possible explanation why I remembered it like this, if you have a Barbri Big Outlines: Criminal Law, p. 7. "Merger of Lesser included offenses into Greater Offenses" - "... nor may be one be convicted of both the greater offense and a lesser included offense". And as an example, it gives Harris v. Oklahoma, where it is held that because the armed robbery was the underlying felony for the felony murder conviction, it is a lesser included offense of the felony murder, and the subsequent prosecution is barred.
Now that I read it, I am thinking that may be, just may be, I am confusing merger of lesser included offenses into greater offenses with double jeopardy issues. But probably no, because this explanation is under the merger chapter, and the underlined sentence is not related to double jeopardy as it does not say "may not be later retried for the other offense", it says one cannot be convicted of both. Just thinking out loud.

[Sue]

Now I am wondering if the fact that burglary and first degree felony murder are specific intent crimes, and arson is a malice crime, has anything to do with the answer. The more I think, the worse it becomes lol. I better go back to my Real Property studying because that is even worse than my Crims