The California Supreme Court reviewed a murder case and found that the second-degree felony-murder rule is valid, but certain crimes merge with the charged homicide and cannot be the basis for a second-degree felony-murder instruction. The court also concluded that the rule is based on statute and stands on firm constitutional ground. The court reconsidered its merger doctrine jurisprudence due to the problems highlighted in the Robertson and Randle cases and adopted the Robertson and Randle test to determine whether a felony merges with a homicide for purposes of the second degree felony-murder rule when the underlying felony is a violation of section 246.3. The court found that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the second degree felony-murder rule in this case, and the error was prejudicial. The defendant's argument that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on conscious-disregard-for-life malice as a theory of second degree murder was rejected by the court. However, the court found that the error in instructing the jury on felony murder was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The matter is being remanded to the Court of Appeal to consider and decide whether the two errors, in combination, were prejudicial.

The Supreme Court of California has overturned previous decisions and ruled that all felonies that are "assaultive in nature" can be used for second-degree felony-murder prosecution. The court recognizes that the second-degree felony-murder rule is a means of imputing malice under the Legislature's statutory definition of second-degree implied malice murder. Inherently dangerous felonies, such as the violation of section 246, can now be used as a basis for a second-degree felony-murder instruction. This decision overrides the "collateral purpose" rule and allows for a broader application of the second-degree felony-murder rule.

Justice Moreno, concurring and dissenting, argues that the second degree felony-murder rule is flawed and should be abandoned. He acknowledges the majority's attempt to improve the rule but believes that it is time to reassess and abandon it. The first degree felony-murder rule is codified in Penal Code section 189, but the second degree felony-murder rule is a judge-made doctrine without any express basis in the Penal Code, and the court possesses the authority to abrogate it. The felony-murder rule has been criticized for almost 45 years on the grounds that it is unnecessary and erodes the relation between criminal liability and moral culpability. The court has held the felony-murder rule in disfavor and has acknowledged that it should not be extended beyond any rational function that it is designed to serve.