Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

People v. Phillips

(1966)

Supreme Court of California - 414 P.2d 353, 64 Cal. 2d 574

tl;dr:

Grand theft by false pretenses is not an inherently dangerous crime, so it cannot serve as the predicate for felony murder.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for People v. Phillips

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Phillips case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingPeople v. Phillips case brief facts & holding

Facts:The defendant was a chiropractor who convinced the parents of...

Holding:The court held that felony murder is only available in...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Phillips case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
People v. Phillips | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: TOBRINER, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

A chiropractor was convicted of second-degree murder after a young patient died from cancer. However, the conviction was overturned because the prosecution failed to establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the patient's death. The patient's parents removed her from the hospital and canceled her surgery after the defendant falsely promised a cure without surgery, leading to the patient's death. The court clarified the three-part instruction on murder in the second degree, which includes scenarios that can result in a murder charge. The third scenario involves a death that occurs during the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate a felony. The court found that only inherently dangerous felonies can support the application of the felony-murder rule and that the court looks at the elements of the felony in the abstract to assess the peril to human life inherent in any given felony.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Phillips case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: BURKE, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting judge argues that the majority made an error in reversing the conviction of second degree murder based solely on the trial court's giving of a felony-murder instruction. The jury was instructed that malice aforethought was necessary for a murder conviction, and that malice could be found not only through the felony-murder rule but also if the killing was committed with an abandoned and malignant heart. The defendant, a chiropractor, was found to have induced the parents of an 8-year-old girl with fast-growing eye cancer to cancel her operation and place her under his care, despite evidence showing he was behind on rent and charged the parents $500 in advance for her treatment, making an additional profit by selling pills for her at a 100 percent mark-up. The defendant was aware that canceling the girl's surgery and placing her under his care would endanger her life, as he recognized the danger of her condition and knew that her case required medical attention which he was not going to give her. Despite knowing that he could not cure cancer, he charged the girl's parents for treatment and made a profit by selling pills for her at a 100 percent mark-up.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Phillips case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Phillips case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

People v. Phillips

Chat for People v. Phillips
brief-694
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.