Adelaide Criminal Lawyer

Law is often offered diverse descriptions. But by far the most apt definition is usually that no man or women will ever be above the legislation. You will discover distinct varieties of lawyer who assist us in getting the legislation in just about every circumstance. The kinds of law firm transform according to your circumstances. The 2 primary lessons of law firm are basic attorney at law and specialized lawyer. Specialized attorney are all those that is going to be specialized in a very distinct field.

When you happen to be involved in a lawsuit, it is critical to understand concerning the policies involved and the legal procedures that ought to be taken. An attorney will allow you with this. They existing your lawsuit in a very best appear beneficial way. Some of your widespread forms of lawyer are legal lawyer, occurrence legal professional, business attorney at law, town legal professional, arrangement attorney, basic safety attorney, break up and separation and divorce lawyers, employment legal professional, surroundings lawyer, family members attorney and so on.

A legal law firm falls under the classification of assault legal professional. Felony prices will likely be less than taken by an assault law firm who will be specialized in both civil and prison circumstances. A felony attorney at law can be an assault legal professional who helps to guard anyone charged with legitimate situation. Accidents are extremely typical now. In most circumstances insurance companies will never have the opportunity to settle he circumstances. Any type of accident attorney at law permits in negotiating the justifications between the clientele and the company on behalf of your purchasers in the courtroom.

Business lawyer are at all times an essential a part of any businesses. They support in supplying strategies towards the organizations similar to any business enterprise unique gives. They are able to take care of various subjects. A town attorney at law distinctive offers with each of the circumstances that don’t arrive underneath authorized legislation. Community lawyer will by no means be specialized in any area. A settlement lawyer gives with receiving arrangement for staff that are struggling from accidents, mishaps and many others.

A compensation legal professional gives with fighting for individuals who claims to have not devoted any legal exercise. Marriage ceremony from time to time is not going to always perform out the way in which anticipated. A divorce attorney functions upon this. They help husbands and wives who will be incompatible to the other in obtaining a break up and separation and divorce.

Authorized statements transform from a person region to other. Each and every law firm will be capable of deal with their parts in that specific place. Adelaide has number of law firm who’s specialized in different policies. Most of them are extremely nicely known and also have several years of follow practical experience.

An Additional Immigration Issue: Can a DUI in Los Angeles Affects an Application for an Asylum?

A new decision from our federal circuit court helps make DUI a crime that could influence asylum and withholding of removal application. August 19, 2011 selection Delgado v. Holder helps make seriously negative several DUI a achievable bar to an application for asylum.

Get more info about dui attorneys los angeles

Before you start out worrying, Delgado’s criminal history is in all probability a great deal worse then yours since he had 3 DUI conviction, every with extremely really serious details. His initially DUI was what seems to become a felony DUI with injury in which he was sentenced to 1 years while in the county jail. His second DUI conviction was also a felony where he was sentenced to 16 month while in the state prison. His third DUI conviction was also a felony DUI that he was sentence to 2 many years state prison. When he was arrested for his third DUI, Delgado was on parole for the 2nd DUI.

The immigration judge decided that cumulative impact of all 3 convictions can make Mr. Delgado a “danger for the neighborhood in the United States”. That is definitely the language from “Withholding of Removal” and “Asylum/Refugee” federal immigration statutes that usually do not permit application of withholding of removal/refugee/asylum statute to an alien who was convicted of “particularly significant crimes”. Those federal statutes are vague and don’t exclusively contain DUI’s as precise crimes that permit denial of asylum or withholding of removal statute. These statutes can make only aggravated felonies, defined elsewhere in the federal law, as “particularly significant crimes”. Also, someone who invest cumulative 5 many years in prisons or jails will likely to become deemed to become convicted of “particularly serious crimes”. Delgado’s total aggregate sentence was 4 years 4 month, although shorter then the 5 a long time qualification for “a specifically serious crime” is rather close. The Circuit Court just isn’t positive why Delgado’s crimes had been deemed “particularly serious”, they only say that the particulars of his convictions could be deemed particularly critical crimes. For clarification it remanded his situation back to the Board of Immigration Appeals, that will probably to clarify and deport Delgado.

No matter what happens to Delgado, this selection is actually a initially on the sort in which a DUI, previously without having identified immigration consequences, can outcome inside a denial of asylum application and deportation. The law permits Lawyer General to designate selected crimes to be “particularly serious crimes”, usually on a case by situation basis, which they did with Delgado. It doesn’t mean that your normal typical DUI will cause a denial of an asylum application. Delgado was different and he’s a “danger towards the community of the United States”.

It’s a shame that 9th circuit is a great deal harsher then the 3rd Circuit which restricted “particularly severe crimes” only to “aggravated felonies”. The prevailing view is that adopted by the 9th circuit.

In conclusion, eventhough now various felony DUI convictions on negative details permit “particularly critical crimes” analysis, it’s not clear what particular information or convictions tends to make a DUI “a particularly critical crimes”. The only clear cut situation is that exactly where you’ll find 3 or more felony DUI’s with 1 of the felony DUI’s acquiring a significant injury component and all 3 have no less than an aggregate sentence of 4 a long time 4 month, it is a bar to asylum, provided that one with the felony DUI’s occurred whilst on parole.

What to do if Charged with Hit and Run

According the law, any person who gets involved in an accident is required to stop in a safe pace so that they can provide first aid and information as my be required. When a person leaves the accident scene, this is normally referred to as hit and run; this is a serious criminal offense in many states. Whether or not you were at fault, you can be accused of hit and run. The same applies to drivers who cause damage to property because they are required by law to leave a note bearing their name and address. They are also required to report immediately to the police department or else they will be charged with hit and run.

Depending on how the accident took occurred, hit and run can be either a felony or misdemeanor. If a person is killed on injured during the hit and run accident this becomes a felony but when the hit and run accident results in the damage of property it becomes a misdemeanor. When a person is charged with hit and run, the police are supposed to investigate and contact the suspected driver; they could ask the driver to bring the vehicle along so they can record a statement. If you get yourself in these circumstances, you need to consult a criminal defense lawyer before you answer any questions or even contact the police.

Some of the factors that will be used in passing a ruling regarding a hit and run accident will include the nature of the accident, how much damage was caused during the said accident, your cooperation with the police during the investigations and whether or not you have any related convictions. Some of the consequences of hit and run charges will range from imprisonment, parole or probation, significant fines or loss of driving privileges.

What if you are the victim of a hit and run accident, can you claim compensation? The answer is yes; this is where there is a difference between civil and criminal law. The police will and the district attorney’s office will look for any reasonable effort so the defendant can pay a fine that will go into the state’s coffers. If on the other hand you are a victim and you want to get compensated, you will be required to go to a civil court and sue the defendant for negligence. The defendant will have been found guilty and in such a case proving their negligence will not be such a big deal; compensation for a victim in this case will not be too difficult. Conviction in hit and run accidents is a serious offense and it carries very serious penalties; it is important for you to hire a competent criminal defense lawyer who is experienced in doing hit and run cases for your defense.
Author’s Bio:

We are a Fresno criminal defense and litigation law firm that fights for our clients’ rights, liberty, and property. Fresno criminal defense attorney Nicco Capozzi is “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” and who is rated as “Superb” by other attorneys and his prior clients. In case you are charged in a hit & run case or need to fight pre-charges and need legal representation in Fresno then contact our law office at (559) 374-2012

Felony DUI Charges and How Your DUI Lawyer Can Help

If you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, you may end up facing a DUI charge. DUI charges can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; the circumstances of your case will determine the specific charges. When charged as a felony, a DUI carries stiffer penalties than when charged as a misdemeanor. Felonies are punishable by over a year in jail. If you have been arrested for DUI, you may be wondering whether you will be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. A DUI attorney in the jurisdiction in which you were pulled over can help you determine whether your particular situation will result in felony charges.

The penalties for DUI charges, which can include fines, jail sentences, alcohol counseling, and other requirements, vary greatly between states. Some states refer to such cases as aggravated DUI rather than felony DUI charges, but it is important to realize that both are felony charges, and therefore carry more severe penalties than misdemeanors. When you are pulled over for a DUI, it is crucial that you contact a DUI lawyer immediately to reduce the chances that you will be charged with felony DUI.

There are certain factors that can elevate DUI charges to felonies. All states have similar laws for repeat offenders; if this is not your first DUI offense, you will likely be charged with a felony. In some cases, blood alcohol level may also impact whether DUI is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Previous charges of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault also elevate DUI charges, especially if these offenses were committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If the current DUI charges are related to an incident of vehicular assault or homicide, they will likely be felony DUI charges. If these additional felony actions are involved, it is crucial that you contact a criminal defense attorney, not only for the DUI charges but for any other charges related to your arrest.

Depending on the particulars of your case, a conviction for felony DUI can carry a fine of up to $20,000 or even more, and a jail term of up to 10 years, in addition to driver’s license suspension, an ignition interlock device, required classes, and other requirements, not to mention a felony conviction on your criminal record. Because of the severity of these penalties, it is essential that you hire a DUI attorney to defend you. Such an attorney can help you get the charges or penalties reduced by negotiating for you to plead to a lesser offense rather than being found guilty of a felony DUI. A plea bargain may be able to significantly reduce your penalties, but you’ll need a skilled DUI lawyer to make it happen.

While even your first misdemeanor DUI offense can carry very serious penalties, the stakes are much higher when felony DUI charges are involved. For series drunk driving accidents or repeat offenses, hiring a DUI lawyer should be one of your first actions following your arrest. You must prepare to defend yourself against felony DUI charges to avoid costly penalties.

Colin Daives writes general information articles about criminal and DUI law. Each state has different laws and every case is unique. His articles are not meant to be legal advice. To learn more, contact Denver criminal attorneys or for assistance with your case in the state of Colorado, contact a Denver DUI lawyer today.

Article Source:

Article Source:

Felony Defense Lawyer: Know Where to Find a Good One

There are many types of lawyers who deal with certain types of cases. One of such attorneys is felony attorney who is specialized in dealing with cases of felony. Felony is an activity which refers to robbery, kidnapping, theft, drugs and other such serious crimes. Felony attorneys are specialists who have good knowledge of felony laws. Their responsibility is to try to free their clients from the charges of the felony they have committed. Their main aim is to try to reduce the legal consequences of the felonies. Thus, if you have been charged for felony, it is important for you to get good protection and representation. This kind of offense can affect your life dramatically, that is why you should get the help of a professional felony attorney to avoid any major issues.

Where to find a good felony lawyer? This question haunts nearly all people who have been convicted of such a crime. Many people try to find a good felony attorney by using such resources as friends, relatives, etc. However, it is possible that in the surrounding of your friends and relatives you may not find anyone who has been convicted of such a crime. Besides, you might not want to tell everybody that you have been accused of such an offense.

Instead, use a source that will give you a chance to stay anonymous in your search for a felony lawyer. Using the Internet may be the best choice. Many attorneys have their own websites and you can find their contacts as well information about their experience and practice in these websites.

When looking for a felony lawyer you should also try to choose a local attorney. This is because felony laws may vary from state to state and local lawyers will surely be more aware of the laws operating in their state as those from other states.

For more information about lawyers [] and legal news please check out []

Article Source:

Article Source:

All You Need to Know About the Development of the English Felony Murder Rule

The common law felony murder rule provides that if a person kills another in doing or attempting to do an act amounting to a felony, the killing is murder. It does not matter whether the death was intended or the product of a reckless disregard for the risk to human life or criminally negligent behavior. Even completely unintended or accidental death may trigger murder liability for felons. Every American law student learns this rule in their first year of law school. Prosecutors and law enforcement find the rule attractive for it provides a formal track of liability which permits a conviction regardless of the juror’s assessment of culpability.

Felony murder is akin to strict liability crimes in that no mental element or mens rea must be proven. The felony murder rule operates in direct opposition to the fundamental principle of criminal law that liability ought to reflect culpability. Although some courts have suggested that the felony murder rule dispenses with the requirement of malice, the more usual explanation given by Professor Joshua Dressler and others is that the intent to commit the felony constitutes the implied malice required for common law murder. In its strictest form the rule holds felons liable for murder even if the death occurs during preparation before or flight after the felony. Felony murder is defined by statute in most states and is usually graded as first degree murder. In states with a death penalty felony murderers are eligible for the death penalty.

The law of felony murder varies from state to state but many American courts have engrafted limitations on the rule. Deterrence is often cited as one justification for the felony murder doctrine. Judges and commentators often argue that the felony murder rule encourages criminals to reduce the number of felonies they commit and to take greater care to avoid causing death while committing a felony. I find this explanation laughable!

A number of commentators criticize the felony murder rule and some believe that its use should be abolished in the United States. Despite such criticism the continued use of the felony murder rule by prosecutors persists in most American states. It persists because our legal notion of punishment requires proportionality and proportionality requires grading. For example when Bonnie and Clyde rob the local liquor store at gunpoint they should be punished for committing a felony. Ten years in jail may be adequate if no one is hurt. However, if during that liquor store robbery the store clerk reaches for a .38 caliber handgun under the counter and Bonnie fires her tommy gun at the clerk but misses and kills an innocent store patron the punishment should be enhanced exponentially for this is felony murder. Simply put we grade a robbery plus a killing higher than a mere robbery. The punishment for such crime could be up to life in prison or even death. Felony murder draws a higher punishment for a killing during the commission of an unlawful act.

How did we come to have a felony murder rule in the United States? Conventional legal wisdom presumes that the felony murder rule derives from English common law and supposedly has “deep but terribly obscure roots.” Ironically, the felony murder rule was abolished in England in 1957. This article will explore the historic origins of the felony murder doctrine in effort to determine whether the English felony murder rule is really the basis of our modern day felony murder rules used by various state courts in the U.S.

Readers may be surprised to learn that the felony murder rule did not enjoy a long common law tradition in England. Instead, the doctrine was rooted in English law, as a result of the writings of English legal commentators but not widely applied in English criminal cases. Readers might be interested to know that Spain, France, Germany, Russia and a host of other countries never developed a felony murder rule.

1. BRACTON AND EARLY THINKING ON FELONY MURDER The English sources of the felony murder rule are not a long line of judicial decisions but mainly scholarly commentaries. The felony murder rule may have grown out of the notion that unintended harms that result from the doing of an unlawful act should be punished severely. One commentator contends that the principle that an actor is responsible for the unintended harms resulting from an unlawful act is ancient, with roots in Christian ethics and common law.

The early English common law of criminal homicide began with the principle that all people who cause death, whether intentionally or accidentally were liable for murder. There was no felony murder rule during this early formation of the English common law.

The English jurist and cleric, Bracton, writing in the mid-thirteenth century applied canon law ideas to the crime of homicide. Henry of Bratton (Henricus de Brattona or Bractona) was an English judge of the court known as coram rege (King’s Bench) from 1247 – 1250 and again from 1253 – 1257. After his retirement in 1257, he continued to serve on judicial commissions. He was also a cleric, having various benefices, the last of which being the chancellorship of Exeter cathedral, where he was buried in 1268. Bracton’s chief work was his treatise De legibus et consuetuninibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England). The work, now commonly known as Bracton, attempts to describe rationally the whole of English law. Bracton wrote that accidental killing was no homicide “because a crime is not committed unless the intention (motive) to injure exists” and in crimes the intention is regarded not the result.” In discussing homicide, Bracton also wrote:

by chance, as by misadventure, when one throws a stone at a bird… and another passing by is unexpectantly struck dies * * * here we must distinguish whether he has been engaged in a proper or an improper act. Improper, as where one has thrown a stone toward a place where men are accustomed to pass, or while one is chasing a horse or ox someone is trampled by the horse or ox and the like here. But if he was engaged in a lawful act * * * liability is not imputed to him.

According to Bracton the one who threw the stone and did so while engaging in an improper act would be guilty of homicide. He did not say guilty of “murder” but it would be a killing which may require penance. Perhaps, through some form of punishment or fine for such an unintended death. This church notion may well be the root of the felony murder rule: punishment for an unintended death occurring during the course of some other unlawful act.

Until the mid-eighteenth century, the problem of killing in the course of an unlawful act was always considered as a rejoinder to the defensive claim of accidental killing. In the thirteenth century when Bracton was writing this presumptive liability for murder was subject to royal pardons as a matter of course if the killing occurred accidentally (per infortunium) or under necessity of self-preservation (se defendo).

The principle recognized by the later English commentators Coke, Hale and Hawkins in the seventeenth century was that the excuse of per infortunium was not available to one whose hands were soiled by an accidental killing occurring in the course of an unlawful act. This principle was not yet a fully blown felony murder rule but we see an expansion on Bracton’s early embryonic thinking concerning homicide occurring during an improper act.

This principle of a killing with soiled hands was a theory for rejecting an excuse which eventually became a formal test of liability for felony murder. Pursuant to this early thinking it was not implausible to deny an excuse to someone who had acted wrongfully in creating the situation for which the excuse must be asserted. This came to be known as “unlawful act murder.” Perhaps, this early thinking concerning unlawful act murder supports our modern American notion for the need for the use of felony murder: proportionality of punishment. If Jean Valjean stole bread because he was poor and his family was starving our modern society might excuse him for the petty theft by placing him on probation or placing him in a diversion program. However, if Jean Valjean accidentally shot and killed the baker of the bread while fleeing with the purloined loaf our justice system would support a prosecution for a felony murder which would deny an excuse to Jean Valjean because he had acted wrongfully by creating the situation for which the excuse would be asserted. Many of our modern felony murder statutes are written just this way.


Commentators often trace the first manifestation of the felony murder rule in an English court to Lord Dacres’ case in 1535. Lord Dacres and his hunting party agreed to trespass in a park to hunt game. They agreed to kill anyone who opposed their plan. One of the Lord’s party killed a gamekeeper who confronted him in the park. Although not physically present at the site of the killing, Lord Dacres was also held responsible for the killing. He was subsequently convicted of murder and hanged with the others in the hunting party.

Another early case which has been cited for the origin of the felony murder rule was decided twenty-three years after Lord Dacres’ Case. In Mansell and Herbert’s case, Herbert and a group of followers went to Sir Richard Mansfield’s house “with force to seize goods under presence of lawful authority.” One of Herbert’s servants threw a stone at a person in the gateway which instead hit and killed an unarmed servant coming out of Mansfield’s house. The question at issue in the case was agreed by the court to be whether the accused were guilty of murder or manslaughter. Since misadventure was not considered, it was assumed that the throwing of the stone was not a careless act. That is, the servant who threw the stone intended to at least hit, if not kill, some person on Mansfield’s side. Although the court divided, the majority held that if one deliberately performed an act of violence toward third parties, and a person not intended died, it was murder regardless of any mistake or misapplication of force.

Herbert’s case is important to our modern thinking on felony murder because it involved a deliberate act of violence against a person, which resulted in an unintended person being the recipient of the violent act. Thus, the court employed a notion of transferred intent. Modern felony murder statutes are often written to address such situation. Such situation may occur when Bonnie and Clyde rob the local liquor store with drawn tommy guns. The store clerk pulls a .38 caliber revolver hidden under the counter. Bonnie reacts by firing her tommy gun at the clerk but misses and kills an innocent patron of the store. Pursuant to most felony murder statutes in U. S. jurisdictions both Bonnie and Clyde would be guilty of felony murder because Bonnie deliberately performed an act of violence during an unlawful act and a person not intended died by mistake or misapplication of force.


In 1619, the commentator Michael Dalton stated the general

proposition that an accidental killing in the course of an unlawful act was felonious: He wrote:

“But if a man be doing of an unlawfull act, though without any evil intent, and he happenth by chance, to kill a man, this is felony, viz. manslaughter at least if not murder in regard the thing he was doing was unlawfull”

The use of the word “felony” in Dalton’s proposition brings us closer to, but still not yet to felony murder as we know it in most U.S. jurisdictions.

Almost one hundred years after Mansell and Herbert’s case Lord Coke may have helped originate the felony murder doctrine when he wrote in one of his works published in 1644 “that a death caused by an unlawful act is murder.” The examples from this first statement of the felony murder rule are quite humble:

If the act be unlawfull it is murder. As if A meaning to steale a Deere in the Park of B, shooteth at the Deere, and by the glance of the arrow killeth a boy, that is hidden in a bush: this is murder, for that the act was unlawfull, although A had no intent to hurt the boy, nor knew not of him. But if B the owner of the Park had shot at his own Deere, and without any ill intent had killed the boy by the glance of his arrow, this had been homicide by misadventure, and no felony.

So if one shoot at any wilde fowle upon a tree, and the arrow killeth any reasonable creature afar off, without any evil intent in him, this is per infortunium: for it was not unlawfull to shoot at the wilde fowle: but if he had shot at a Cock or Hen, or any tame fowle of another mans and the arrow by mischance had killed a man this had been murder, for the act was unlawfull.

Coke may have been confused when he made this statement making the death by an unlawful act as murder. That is not what Bracton had written back in the mid-thirteenth century. Bracton wrote that such a killing would amount to “homicide.”

Professor David Lanham reminds us that the chapter in which Coke’s statement appears was Chapter 8 of his commentary in The Second Year Book. This chapter is principally concerned with manslaughter. The doctrine of murder by unlawful act is stated just after Coke’s explanation of homicide by misadventure, which was “when a man doth an act that is not unlawful, which without any evil intent tendeth to a man’s death.”

Coke explains that homicide by misadventure is not felonious. It was in this context of the discussion that Coke states “that if the act is unlawful it is murder even if there was no intent to hurt a human. Such a statement contradicted Coke’s own treatment of the law of murder which he called the unlawful killing with malice aforethought. That is, there were two separate elements for murder – unlawfulness and malice. Professor Lanham contends that it is erroneous to say “if the act be unlawful, it is murder, in light of the need to have malice as a factor in addition to unlawfulness.”

The message that Coke may have been trying to convey was that an unintentional killing in the course of an unlawful act would be felonious. This would have been the proposition first put forth by the earlier commentator Dalton in 1619. Instead, we have been left with the harsh foundation of the modern day rule that a killing during the course of a felony is murder.

Soon after Coke’s Third Institute was published a case was decided which implicitly rejected the doctrine of felony murder in the form that Coke stated the rule. In Sir John Chichester’s Case, Sir John and his servant were playing at foils, that is dueling. The chafe, or cover, of Sir John’s scabbard fell off. Neither party noticed. Sir John thrust the then deadly weapon into his servant’s belly and the servant died. The court held that as there was no intention to do mischief it was not murder but as the act was unlawful it was manslaughter.

Sir Matthew Hale of Kent lived from 1609 to 1676. He served as Lord Chief Justice of England from 1671 to 1676. His writings included his work Historia placitorum coronae (the history of the pleas of the crown). Hale was considered the greatest legal mind of the period in England. In addition to his writings concerning unlawful act killings he wrote on insanity. He stated that only total insanity could absolve a criminal from legal responsibility, a principle still prevalent in present day criminal law. Hale also believed the moon was responsible for mental disease, and he is thought to have coined the term “lunatic.”

When Hale continued the discussion on felony murder near the end of the seventeenth century he reasoned that Coke’s example of shooting at a deer and killing a boy should be classified as manslaughter. Although this differed from Coke’s assessment of murder, it represented a shift in thinking concerning killing during an illegal act. For Hale the unlawful act itself became the ground for establishing the degree of criminal homicide.

While Hale confined the mental element of murder to an intent to harm, he also restricted the act element of murder to killing. An unlawful act involving a threat of injury, like robbery was malicious in Hale’s view. An unlawful motive for initiating violence was inconsistent with provocation which could mitigate murder to manslaughter. Thus, in Hale’s thinking if the robber kills in trying to overcome his victim or anyone resisting the robbery, he was guilty of murder. This thinking may be the root of the modern day trend of limiting felony murder to certain inherently dangerous felonies, sometimes called enumerated felonies.

In the early part of the eighteenth century the commentator Hawkins brought us closer to the modern day felony murder rule. He asserted in his writings that “a person who in the pursuance of a deliberate intention to commit a felony, chances to kill a man, as by shooting a tame fowl with intent to steal them is guilty of murder on the basis… whenever a man intending to commit one felony, happens to commit another he is as much guilty as if he had intended the felony which he actually commits.”

This passage by Hawkins implies the following arguments: (1) Killing in the course of an unlawful act is murder only if accompanied by an “ill intent,” according to Hale’s writing on the subject; (2) Hale does not limit “ill intent” to kill but knowingly imposing a risk of death or injury; (3) such a knowing imposition of risk is inherent in all crimes that would tend to provoke resistance; (4) felonies are a particularly heinous subset of such inherently dangerous crimes; (5) hence, the intent to commit a felony may be included within the “ill

intent” that qualifies killings in the course of unlawful acts as murder.

This is rather tortuous reasoning but very important in the historic formulation of the modern felony murder rule: a killing in the course of an unlawful act, where there is ill intent and where it is known that the act is reckless and may carry a risk of death or injury, then such act being a felony makes the killing done in the course of that unlawful act murder. This is almost the description of a modern version of the felony murder as set out in today’s Model Penal Code.

At least one scholar maintains that the true father of the modern felony murder rule is the commentator Foster. In 1762 he wrote his Discourse of Homicide wherein he took a new approach of the problem of the poacher who kills accidentally. The critical question for Foster was whether the poacher shooting at the deer intends to steal it. Foster concluded that if he did intend to steal it he is guilty of felony, and if he killed someone in the bush, “it will be murder by reason of the felonious intent.” For Foster, it was essential that the unlawful act was a felony, and in view of his rationale of transferred intent, it is presumably immaterial whether the felony is dangerous.


From a historical perspective the addition of Foster’s writing on felony murder has finally provided us with the full blown “classic” felony murder rule that criminal law professors teach first year law students every year: at common law any killing perpetrated during the course of any felony is murder.

As the forgoing demonstrates the rule did not appear full blown during one period. Instead, it was fashioned through the Lord Dacres’ and Herbert’s cases and through the legal commentators. Unlike many common law concepts the felony murder rule did not grow out of a line of court case decisions over several centuries. In actuality the felony murder rule was not routinely used in the courts of England.

Professor George Fletcher contends that the apology for Foster’s reconstruction of the law was that all felonies of the time were capital anyway, and there was no great evil in upgrading larceny and other felonies to murder. We often hear this today. That is, at early common law it made no difference whether the felon was convicted of the larceny or the killing incident to the felony for the felon would be hanged anyway. This is not completely true.

Fletcher maintains that it is false to say that in England during this time that it made no difference whether one was convicted of the larceny or the murder. In reality execution rates varied widely among capital felonies and such executions may not have been as widespread as sometimes thought. The laws on the books in England concerning felony murder were not widely followed by the courts through the end of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century.

A few years after the appearance of Foster’s commentary Blackstone published his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which became the standard reference work on the common law for American colonial lawyers. In his Commentaries Blackstone offered a version of Hawkins’ general principle that the intent to commit one felony could transfer to an unintended felonious result. This notion of transferred intent which could be used to enhance the proportion of punishment may have well been the beginning of American jurisdictions love affair with the felony murder rule, even though it was not utilized very often in England and certainly was not an “ancient rule.”

Blackstone invoked Foster’s formulation of the felony murder rule:

In general, when an involuntary killing happens in consequence of an unlawful act, it will be either murder or manslaughter according to the nature of the act which occasioned it. If it be in prosecution of a felonious intent it will be murder; but if no more was intended than a mere trespass it will amount only to manslaughter.

Blackstone offered a rule like Hale’s emphasizing the dangerousness of the predicate crime rather than its felonious quality.


By the time of the American Revolution, the rule that an accidental death in the course of any felony was murder had become a standard theme in the scholarly writing about the common law of homicide, supported by Hawkins, Foster, and – ambivalently – by Blackstone. Yet no English court had actually applied such a rule. At the time of the Lord Dacres’ and Herbert’s cases there was a concept but no doctrine known as the felony murder rule. By the end of the eighteenth century some judges thought co-felons were automatically implicated in any murder committed in attempt of a felony, but most judges required participation in or encouragement of the act causing death. By and large, eighteenth century English practice accorded with Hale’s conception of murder as the infliction of a fatal wound with the intent to cause harm.

After the American Revolution the English courts managed to keep the rule of felony murder within tight bounds. It is reported that by the middle of the nineteenth century the common law rule of felony murder, although supported by leading treatises, remained controversial and had not been applied in a single English case. Some of the earliest reported jury instructions on the felony murder rule allude to its unpopularity, and seemed to invite the jury to ignore it. As trial judge in the 1887 case of Regina v. Serne, Fitzjames Stephen, instructed the jury that causing death in the course of a felony would be murder only if the felonious act “was known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death.” This is certainly a “Hale”-like limitation on the felony murder rule, and a limitation found in many American jurisdictions today.

It is Professor Guyora Binder’s conclusion that the English courts first applied the modern felony murder rule to cases in the second half of the nineteenth century and they identified it as a controversial doctrine and linked it to actual participation in a violent or obviously dangerous act. Judge Stephen and others also expressed their views that the felony murder rule should be so limited in reporting to a parliamentary committee on homicide law revision in 1874. Judge Stephen commented that a rule imposing murder liability for an accidental killing in the course of a felony such as theft would be “perfectly barbarous and monstrous.” By the end of the nineteenth century, English law conditioned felony murder liability on a foreseeable dangerous act. The aforementioned case of Rex v. Serne made this requirement of foreseeable dangerousness explicit.

Some scholars postulate that in the twentieth century England seldom prosecuted felons under the felony murder doctrine. The rule was disfavored and if there was a conviction under the rule executions were rare. In 1957 England abolished the felony murder rule by statute.

As this brief history reveals the felony murder rule as a valid doctrine of English common law was utilized in few criminal trials and its use was surprisingly brief, perhaps only a century. Although Lord Dacres’ and Herbert’s cases provided the intellectual foundation by the commentators who fashioned the felony doctrine, it never became a rule in trials in England that felons were strictly liable for accidental deaths in the course of any felony. Instead, the felony had to be violent or manifestly dangerous. The much criticized and supposedly ancient rule of strict liability never really existed in English law. As a matter of fact, there was no mention of the connection between felonies and murders until Foster’s rewriting of the law in 1762. The rule was not a part of the common law at the time of the American Revolution, and therefore it could not have been inherited.

Such a felony murder rule of the kind we know today could not have become a part of the law of any state in the newly formed United States unless that jurisdiction enacted it. Our use of the felony murder rule is broader and more far reaching than it had ever been in England.

Leonard Birdsong is a 3-time professor-of-the-year at Barry University School of Law and former U.S. State Department diplomat with assignments in Nigeria, Germany and the Bahamas. He worked as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in trial work in both criminal matters and asylum cases. He also provides legal commentary on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. He also appears as a legal commentator on CBS radio and Fox radio news. Professor Birdsong is the author of several books comprising the Weird Criminal Law series and can be reached via, or at

Article Source:

Article Source:

A Brief History of the American Felony Murder Rule


After our American Independence a number of the new states began legislative reforms to codify the crime of murder. One of the earliest states to do so was Pennsylvania. In 1794, that state enacted a murder degree statute which divided murder into first degree capital murder and second degree murder. The Pennsylvania legislature constricted the penalty for felony murder by imposing capital punishment only for such felonies as occurred in the perpetration of arson, rape, robbery or burglary. The statute further provided that all murder in the state other than ones committed in the perpetration of one of the common law felonies specified in their degree statute was to be second degree murder.

Later the felony of kidnapping was added to the list of specified felonies for purposes of felony murder. Only first degree murder served as a basis for hanging. The Pennsylvania statute did not actually formulate a felony murder rule or define the elements of murder. Instead the statute identified participation in certain felonies as a grading element that aggravated murder liability. The statute prescribed that:
All murder, which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by laying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder in the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be murder in the second degree.

The implication of the statute is that murder in the course of one of the enumerated felonies did not require wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. The language of the statute does not suggest that the mere causing of death in the course of any felony was always murder. This idea is much more in line of what Lord Hale was proposing in his writings at the end of the seventeenth century and is similar to Judge Stephen’s jury instruction in the Serne case: that it would be murder only if the felonious act was known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death. The word “deemed” in the statute implies the notion that a judge or jury could weigh the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of an accused warranted a charge of murder for which the accused could be hanged.

The Pennsylvania statute was enormously influential, shaping homicide reform statutes in two thirds of the then existing states during the nineteenth century. Twelve states adopted Pennsylvania’s grading scheme with little or no modification, the states which adopted the Pennsylvania statute as drafted were: Virginia in 1796, Kentucky from 1798 to 1801, Maryland in 1810, Louisiana from its admission in1812 to 1855, Tennessee in 1829, Michigan in 1838, Arkansas in 1838, New Hampshire in 1842, Connecticut in 1846, Delaware in 1852, Massachusetts in 1858, and West Virginia, entering the Union with such a statute in 1863.

Another nineteen states adopted a somewhat modified grading scheme. The States that adopted the Pennsylvania statute with a somewhat modified grading scheme were: Ohio in 1815, Maine in 1840, Alabama in 1841, Missouri in 1845, Iowa in 1851, Indiana in 1852, California in 1856, Texas in 1858, New York in 1860, Kansas (entering the Union with such a law in 1861), Oregon in 1864, Nevada (entering the Union with such a law in 1864), Nebraska in 1873, Montana (entering the Union with such a law in 1889), Washington (entering the union with such a law in 1889), Idaho (entering the Union with such a law in 1890), Wyoming (entering the Union with such a law in 1890), North Carolina in 1893, and Utah (entering the Union with such law in 1896).


The first true felony murder rule statute was passed in Illinois in 1827. The Illinois statute defined murder as unlawful killing with express malice, or acting with knowledge that the acts will or probably will result in death or great bodily harm, and felony murder. The statute added that an “involuntary killing… in the commission of an unlawful act which in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, or is committed in the prosecution of a felonious intent… shall be deemed and adjudged to be murder.” Again, we see the influence of Lord Hale and not Lord Coke. Illinois’s statute is a true felony murder statute. Yet, it is not a strict liability statute in that it limits liability for an involuntary killing in the course of a felony that “tends to destroy the life of a human being.” It is not applicable to all felonies. Hale thought that it would be murder only if the felonious act was known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death.

In 1829 a statute enacted in New Jersey included within murder killing ” in committing, or attempting to commit, sodomy, rape, arson, robbery, or burglary, or any unlawful act against the peace of this state, of which the probable consequence may be bloodshed… ” During that same year New York passed the strictest of the new felony murder rule statutes. Their statute defined murder as killing “without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the commission of any felony.” At the end of the nineteenth century, nineteen states had adopted such differing kinds of felony murder statutes. These states were: Illinois in 1827), New Jersey in 1829, Georgia in1833, Mississippi in 1839, Alabama in 1841, Missouri in 1845, Wisconsin in 1849, California in 1850, Texas in 1857, Minnesota (entering the Union with such a law in 1858), Nevada (entering the Union with such a law in 1864), Oregon in 1864, Nebraska in 1866, though repealing the law in 1873, Florida in 1868, Colorado (entering the Union with such a law in 1876), Idaho and Montana (both entering the Union with such laws in 1889), and Utah (entering the Union with such a law in 1896).

The twentieth century began with most states having various ways for defining felony murder: predicating murder liability on implied malice, as well as a felony; predicating murder liability on dangerous felonies, sometimes called enumerated felonies, or predicating murder liability on any felony. Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century we continue to see American states defining felony murder in the same ways. The growth of felony murder in the United States had more to do with Pennsylvania’s 1794 murder grading statute than it did with Lord Coke’s notion in the seventeenth century that a death caused by an unlawful act is murder.

The felony murder rule in the United States has been more expansive than that employed in England due to the pairing of two concepts. One, the concept of felony murder itself and the ways it may be defined by statute and two, the concept of vicarious liability used to hold all co-conspirators liable for the substantive crimes committed by any one of the conspirators in the course of executing the unlawful agreement that may have led to the American felony murder rule.

Such a situation may obtain when Bonnie and Clyde decide to rob the local liquor store and they enlist Clyde’s brother Buck to drive them to the liquor store, stay outside to act as a look out and to be their getaway driver. Buck agrees. If during the robbery the store clerk reaches for his.38 revolver under the counter causing Bonnie to fire her tommy gun at him but she misses and her bullets kills an innocent patron of the store, then Bonnie, Clyde, and Buck would all be held liable for and could each be convicted of conspiracy to rob, armed robbery, and felony murder. The felony murder rule was never applied this way in England.

Leonard Birdsong is a 3-time professor-of-the-year at Barry University School of Law and former U.S. State Department diplomat with assignments in Nigeria, Germany and the Bahamas. He worked as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in trial work in both criminal matters and asylum cases. He also provides legal commentary on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. He also appears as a legal commentator on CBS radio and Fox radio news. Professor Birdsong is the author of several books comprising the Weird Criminal Law series and can be reached via, or at

Article Source:

Article Source:

What is the Difference Between a Felony and a Misdemeanor?

Criminal charges fall into three general categories. The first, infractions, are relatively minor traffic-related charges that involve no threat of jail time. The maximum fine for an infraction is usually around $250.

More serious crimes are classified as either misdemeanors or felonies. The classification of the charge depends on a variety of factors, as does the punishment. If you were arrested on criminal charges in San Francisco, a good criminal law attorney can help advise you of the best possible way to build your defense.

What is a misdemeanor?

Misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in local county jail, and fines of up to $2,500. Examples of misdemeanors include:

Petty theft
Public intoxication
Simple assault
Reckless driving
Drug possession

While a misdemeanor conviction can be seen on your public record, the severity of the offense affects how long it stays on your record. Misdemeanor sentences can also include community service, probation, suspension of your drivers license, and restitution to the victim. Misdemeanors can be wiped from your record after your sentence is served, and you are not required to inform employers about them. This allows more privacy for the defendant.

What is a felony?

Felonies are more serious crimes punishable by incarceration in state prison in excess of one year and fines of up to $150,000. Felonies are subject to death penalty sentences as well. Examples of felonies include:

Property damage exceeding $500
Grand theft

Aside from imprisonment, being convicted of a felony has long-term consequences such as loss of voting rights, ineligibility for public office or jury duty, and inability to possess firearms. A felony conviction can stay on your record forever. If you are accused of violating criminal laws and face felony charges in the San Francisco area, contacting a criminal law attorney is the best thing you can do to help your case.

What are wobblers?

Several charges are considered wobblers in California-meaning that they could be classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances. If you are facing criminal charges for a wobbler, hiring the right criminal law attorney is absolutely essential to providing the best possible outcome for your case. The right attorney can help make sure you are charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

What to do if you have been charged with a misdemeanor or a felony

If you are facing criminal charges, contacting a competent criminal law attorney as soon as possible is the best thing that you can do for your case.

Criminal laws must be taken seriously, and a good criminal law attorney must have the experience and skill to help you build a strong defense. With nearly two decades of experience practicing law, an exceptional Bay Area criminal defense lawyer [] is dedicated to pursuing the best possible outcome for your case. Whether you have been arrested for a DUI or a serious narcotics offense, we can help. Visit our webpage at [] today.

Article Source:

Article Source: