How has the common law felony-murder doctrine been interpreted?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Laursen, 22 Cal.App.3d 1033, 99 Cal.Rptr. 841 (Cal. App. 1972):

The doctrine was stated in the early felony-murder case of People v. Boss (1930) 210 Cal. 245, 250-251, 290 P. 881, which involved a murder prosecution as a result of the defendants' having killed a person who was pursuing them in their flight from the scene of a robbery they had committed.

The common law felony-murder doctrine was codified in Penal Code section 189 and applies to a homicide committed in the 'perpetration' of robbery, rather than to 'any person who kidnaps . . . to commit robbery' (Pen.Code, 209). As applied in the felony-murder context, it has always been enough to show that the felony and the killing are part of a continuous transaction (People v. Chavez (1951) 37 Cal.2d 656, 234 P.2d 632). In that case the court restated the law:

Other Questions


When a judge refers to "common sense, common-sense, popular parlance" or "common-sense", does this mean that the judge must be able to rely solely on common sense or common- sense? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of self-defense in cases that address other legal doctrines? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for interpreting the meaning of the word "reasonable and common sense interpretation" in the context of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for interpretation of the California Code of Civil Procedure when it comes to the interpretation of statutory interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of common law in the context of medical malpractice? (California, United States of America)
How does the prosecution in a civil case establish that there is a connection between a group of individuals with a common name, common identifying symbols and a common enemy? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
Is a city's interpretation of a section of the California Civil Code interpreted in the context of an administrative agency's interpretation? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.