SB 1437- California’s Reformed Felony Murder Rule
By Sean R. Francis, President
Justice Solutions of America
For years in California, like in other states, the law allowed offenders to be charged with murder even if they were not the person who actually committed the murder. To illustrate, the felony murder rule works like this: If two people decide to commit a felony offense, like burglary, and in the process, one of the offender’s shoots and kills a victim, even if it was unintentional, both offenders can be charged with first-degree murder. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/23/california-felony-murder-rule/ It has been argued that the felony murder rule resulted in disproportionately long sentences for offenders who never actually killed anyone. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-felony-murder-signed-jerry-brown-20180930-story.html
However, as of January 1, 2019, this has all changed and a new felony murder rule is in effect. With bi-partisan support, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law S.B. 1437. However, this new law is a little confusing and a lot of questions remain, so let’s explain exactly what this new law does. S.B. 1437 will no longer allow defendants who did not actually kill someone from being charged with murder. Moving forward only the actual killer will be held responsible for the murder. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437
So that’s it, right? Problem solved? Not quite. Under this new felony murder rule there will be circumstances in which a participant in a crime in which a murder occurred can still be held responsible for the murder, even if they did not actually kill the person. When a participant in a crime, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, unless the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the course of performing his or her duties where the defendant knew or should reasonably have known the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, then they may still be charged with murder. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437
So, to break this down, two people break into a home and the homeowner is murdered by the defendant one, defendant two had no part in the killing. Under this scenario, only the actual killer will be held responsible. However, let’s keep this same scenario but now defendant two helps beat and tie the homeowner up while encouraging the defendant one to kill the witnesses. In this scenario, both defendants can be charged with murder. Make sense?
Also, if the victim is a police officer then all bets are off and both defendants will still be charged with murder regardless of intent. So, to make this simple, if during the commission of a felony a police officer dies all defendants will continue to be held criminally responsible for the murder, not just the actual killer.
A huge provision of the law is that it is retroactive, and it applies to offenders who accepted a plea deal. It has been estimated that over 800 people in California prisons for first-degree murder may be eligible for relief under the new law.
S.B. 1437 was not without its critics and opponents. The bill was opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and the California Sheriffs’ Association among others. Indeed, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office challenged the law on constitutional grounds. Their argument was rejected by the 4th District Court of Appeal in 2019 and on February 20, 2020 the California Supreme Court refused to hear the case, essentially allowing the ruling to stand and for S.B. 1437 to go into full effect. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2020-02-20/supreme-court-decision-not-to-review-felony-murder-law-ruling-clears-way-for-inmates-seeking-new-sentences
California Prison Consultants are not a law firm or an attorney referral service. This blog post was not written by an attorney.
