How have courts interpreted the felony-murder rule?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Burgener, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 41 Cal.3d 505, 714 P.2d 1251 (Cal. 1986):
Since defendant was convicted of felony murder with an intent to kill, his challenges to the felony-murder rule itself are refuted in People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the rules of evidence in cases dealing with self-confessed statements made outside of court? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal interpret the evidentiary rulings of the Superior Court of Justice? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the exclusionary rule adopted by the California Supreme Court in the context of Proposition 8? (California, United States of America)
Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the duty-of-inquiry rule in the context of a substitution motion? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the rule of reasonableness in the context of the reasonable use doctrine? (California, United States of America)
