California is often at the forefront of legal changes – some good and some bad. According to California Penal Code Section 189, often referred to as the felony murder rule, hold that if a person is involved in any dangerous felony (such as kidnapping, carjacking, etc.) and a person is killed in the commission of that crime, then anyone who took part in the crime can be tried for murder – even if they were not involved in the actual killing.

Is this a fair law? While lawmakers may have been trying to lower the number of violent felonies committed, many people question if a person should really be held accountable for murder if they did not murder someone. Read on to find out what changes may be coming and decide how you feel about it. If you have been charged with any crime then make sure you are working with a criminal defense attorney who stays up to date on the latest changes to case law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a potentially important ruling

An inmate, who is currently serving 19 years to life for a conviction obtained through the felony murder rule, has been cleared to challenge the law as being unconstitutionally vague, thanks to a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will be keeping our eyes on this case to see if it results in any significant changes to the law.

A Senate Bill may also be changing the law

The decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not the only reason that people opposed to this rule are rejoicing. They are also pleased to see that Senate Bill 1437, which has bipartisan approval, is currently working through the California senate. This Bill is designed not to get rid of the felony murder rule but to more closely define it only to people who have either:

• Actually committed the murder.
• Directly aided the person who committed the act and had the intention to kill the person.
• Acted recklessly during the felony in a way that is consistent with the disregard to human life.

While the passage of this bill would not get rid of the rule altogether, it could go a long way toward ensuring that only the worst cases apply.

Is the felony murder rule fair?

Opinions vary but we believe that there are two main reasons that it is not. First, the law is written very vaguely. Second, it is difficult to make a case that it is fair to punish one person for another person’s actions.

For example, if a person was the getaway driver during a robbery and was assured that there would be no weapons involved, only to later find that the person who actually committed the robbery shot and killed someone, the getaway driver could reasonably be held responsible for their own actions but why should they pay for the actions of another person?