Felony Murder Rule Explained

Summary

In California, the felony murder rule applies if a death occurs during a dangerous felony like robbery. The death must be a direct result of the felony. Robbery is considered a dangerous felony, and Dennis could be charged with felony murder due to the connection between the robbery and Victorias death. However, since her death did not occur during the felony, Dennis might argue the rule does not apply. In contract disputes, impossibility of performance can be a defense if unforeseen events prevent fulfilling obligations. Intoxication is generally not a defense for serious crimes like rape. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires clear actions to disavow the plan, but initial agreement to a conspiracy can still result in guilt.

Full Conversation

answer the victoria question
In California, the felony murder rule applies if a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony, such as robbery. Here are the key points:
- Robbery is considered a dangerous felony.
- The death must occur as a direct result of the felony, not as an indirect consequence.
Based on these points, Dennis could be charged with felony murder because robbery is a dangerous felony, and Victoria's death, although indirectly, was connected to the stress from the robbery. However, since her death did not occur during the felony, Dennis might also argue that the felony murder rule does not apply.
What are your specific concerns or additional questions regarding this scenario?
answer the swiney question
Swiney's most effective defense to Fair's claim would likely be based on "impossibility of performance." This is because the disease Megahog contracted made it impossible for Swiney to fulfill his contractual obligation to exhibit the hog.
Do you have any other specific questions about this scenario?
Which of the following additional facts, if it was the only one true, would be most likely to result in a judgment in favor of Fair? Group of answer choices On June * the state Department of Livestock learned that Megahog had contracted boarsitis and issued an order prohibiting the exhibition of Megahog. On the day of the trial Fair could prove exactly how much revenue Fair lost as a result of Swiney' failure to exhibit Megahog. On May * Swiney was aware that many hogs in the area had contracted boarsitis. On June * Swiney owned a hog with quantities equivalent to Megahog's.
The fact most likely to result in a judgment in favor of Fair would be:
- On June * Swiney owned a hog with quantities equivalent to Megahog's.
This suggests an alternative hog could have potentially fulfilled the contract.
Do you have any other questions or need more information on this case?
In which of the following fact situations is defendant's claim of intoxication LEAST likely to be an effective defense? Group of answer choices Charged with larceny of an automobile, defendant asserts that after injecting heroin into his bloodstream he was so intoxicated that he believed the automobile to be his own. Charged with rape, defendant asserts that immediately before the act he drank a great deal of liquor, and that as a result he was so intoxicated that he believed his victim to be his wife. Charged with attempted robbery, defendant asserts that each time she pointed her pistol at the victim and demanded money she was so intoxicated that she thought the victim was a friend of hers and would know that she was joking. Charged with murder, defendant asserts that immediately before she shot the victim, an unknown person put alcohol in her orange juice without her knowledge, and that as a result she was so intoxicated that she believed her gun was a harmless toy.
In California, intoxication as a defense generally doesn't apply to general intent crimes, and is least effective in cases where the crime involves significant harm or danger to others. The least likely effective defense would be:
- Charged with rape, defendant asserts that immediately before the act he drank a great deal of liquor, and that as a result he was so intoxicated that he believed his victim to be his wife.
This is because rape is a serious crime and intoxication is rarely accepted as a defense. Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this?
answer the question
In California, a claim of intoxication is least likely to be an effective defense in situations where the defendant's belief due to intoxication does not negate the criminal intent required for the crime committed. The most relevant fact situation would be:
- Charged with murder, defendant asserts that immediately before she shot the victim, an unknown person put alcohol in her orange juice without her knowledge, and that as a result she was so intoxicated that she believed her gun was a harmless toy.
This is because the act of shooting someone typically requires intent, and the belief that the gun was a harmless toy due to intoxication might not sufficiently negate the intent to shoot.
Do you have any other specific questions or need more information on this scenario?
aanswer thw downing question
In California, for a defendant to withdraw from a conspiracy, they must demonstrate a clear and affirmative act to disavow or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy. Downing's actions could potentially support a defense of withdrawal.
- Not guilty, if he notified Jensen that he had changed his mind about going through with the plan.
Do you have any further questions regarding this scenario?
answer please
In California, if Downing is prosecuted for conspiracy to commit bank robbery, he should be found:
- Guilty.
This is because the conspiracy was already formed when they agreed and planned the robbery. The act of backing out and informing the police does not negate the initial conspiracy agreement.
Do you have any additional questions or need more information on this case?