People v. Aaron

common law felony murder rule

In a combined case of three people convicted of first-degree felony murder, the Court addressed (1) whether Michigan has a common-law felony-murder rule that allows murder convictions based on the intent to commit the underlying felony, or whether prosecutors must prove malice with regard to the killing itself; and (2) what mens rea is required to support a conviction under Michigan’s first-degree murder statute.

Michigan’s common law felony murder rule includes a malice mens rea element with regard to the killing itself, not just the underlying felony that led to the killing. That is, the state must prove intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or the wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the person’s conduct is to cause death or great bodily harm. In adding this malice element to the felony murder rule, the court clarified “that is no longer acceptable to equate the intent to commit a felony with the intent to kill.”

The felony-murder rule violates the basic principle of culpability in that it allows murder convictions without a nexus between the homicide and the perpetrator’s state of mind. Where the rule has been applied in cases of unforeseen or accidental deaths, the rule is “either unnecessary or contrary to fundamental principles of our criminal law.”

In a review of Michigan case law, the court said that while no prior decisions specifically abrogated the felony murder rule, precedent “persuades us that we should abolish the rule which defines malice as the intent to commit the underlying felony.” According to the court, the intent to commit a felony does not constitute a sufficient mens rea to establish the crime of murder: “It is is no longer acceptable to equate the intent to commit a felony with the intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of a person’s behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.”

The Court held that in order to convict for murder, a jury must find malice—that is, the intent to kill, express or implied. In doing so, it expressed great skepticism about the felony murder rule. “Whatever reasons can be gleaned from the dubious origin of the felony-murder rule to explain its existence, those reasons no longer exist today,” wrote Justice Fitzgerald. “Indeed, most states, including our own, have recognized the harshness and inequity of the rule as is evidenced by the numerous restrictions placed on it. The felony-murder doctrine is unnecessary and in many cases unjust in that it violates the basic premise of individual moral culpability upon which our criminal law is based.”

Justice Ryan wrote separately, concurring in the result but disagreeing with the reasoning. He argued that Michigan’s felony murder rule was based on a misconception and is now abolished.

“The effect of this decision is not, as my brother suggests, to redefine malice or murder. Those terms will mean what they have always meant in this state: murder is a killing accompanied by malice; malice is the intent to kill, the intent to inflict great bodily harm, or wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of one’s behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. Moreover, malice is and always has been a question of fact for the trier of fact and, as all questions of fact, may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. These principles are unaffected by this case.

Today we simply declare that the offense popularly known as felony murder, which, properly understood, has nothing to do with malice and is not a species of common-law murder, shall no longer exist in Michigan, if indeed it ever did.”