Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of New Jersey - 374 A.2d 20, 73 N.J. 206
Tags: felony murder
tl;dr:
Armed robbery results in death of victim and robber. Co-felon not liable for felony murder of robber because of agency ruleVideo Summary
Case Summary
In the case of State v. Canola (1977), Canola was found guilty of murder after the death of his accomplice during a jewelry store robbery. During the crime, the store owner and an employee fought back against the robbers, leading to a shootout where both the store owner and one of Canola's accomplice robbers were killed by each other's gunfire.
Canola was charged with murder for both deaths under the felony-murder rule and sentenced to life in prison. He appealed, claiming that he shouldn't be responsible for his accomplice's death, who was killed by a robbery victim.
The appellate court agreed with his conviction, but the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned it. They decided that the felony-murder rule doesn't apply when someone dies while a felony is being committed, but not directly caused by the criminal or their accomplices. The co-felon's death happened while resisting the robbery, not as part of it.
This case demonstrates how New Jersey applies the felony-murder rule, which makes a person liable for a murder when they cause a death during a felony, without needing to prove intent or malice. The case also shows that courts can limit the rule's scope to prevent unfair outcomes.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The court is considering whether a defendant can be held responsible for felony murder when a co-felon is killed by the victim during a robbery. The court must determine the legislative intent behind the ensues clause in the statute and whether it expands the class of victims to include all killings within the res gestae of the felony. The majority view in the US is that the felony murder rule does not apply if a killing is directly caused by someone other than the defendant or those associated with the unlawful enterprise. The court refused to extend liability to instances where the deceased was a co-felon. The content and history of N.J.S.A. 2A:113-2 further supports the interpretation of the "ensues" clause in N.J.S.A. 2A:113-1.
Although Justice Sullivan agrees with the end result of the legal case, he disagrees with the way in which the majority interpreted the felony murder statute. According to the majority, a felon cannot be held criminally responsible for any killing that occurs during the commission of a felony as long as the felon or a confederate did not commit the killing. Justice Sullivan argues that the legislative intent of the statute is to hold the criminal responsible for any killing that occurs during the felony, regardless of the perpetrator, with the exception of the death of a co-felon, which could be considered justifiable homicide. He suggests that the Legislature should clarify the matter by either expanding the felony murder statute to include killings committed by someone other than the felon or confederate, or by charging the felon with manslaughter in addition to the felony. In agreement with the result only, Justice Pashman joins this opinion.
The Appellate Division's decision in the case, which extends criminal liability under the "ensues clause" and proximate cause theory to death caused by the initiation and furtherance of a felony, is supported by the dissenting opinion. The theory makes felons responsible for any death that results from the initial criminal act, regardless of the intent behind it, and also includes deaths resulting from resistance. While the decision was affirmed by one justice, six others modified it.
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.