Nope. She killed in self defense. I’m looking for a case where the second burglar escaped being murdered, only to also be charged with felony murder.
so you are looking for a case where two burglars break into a home, the occupant supersedes self-defense and goes into full-bore murder territory, and one burglar is killed, the other is not, and the occupant is convicted of murder as well as the surviving burglar?
It’s the same case. It was self-defense-he had a knife in his hand.
Yes. Neither burglar directly threatens the homeowner(or even has a weapon), one is murdered(not just killed), and the other burglar is charged in such a manner.
State v. Sophophone, 270 Kan. 703 (2001) a kansas case. (In my casebook, I happen to be studying for a Crim. Law final in December)
In that case, the felony murder was reversed for a co-felon of a guy who was lawfully killed by police officer during their flight from an aggravated burglary.
If a lawful killing by a 3rd part is enough to prevent a felony murder conviction, I would imagine an unlawful killing by a 3rd party (or perhaps the burglary victim) would be enough to prevent a felony murder conviction as well.
There was a strong dissent however and it would come down to how the state supreme court interpreted the felony murder law of the state you were in.
http://brainerddispatch.com/news/2012-11-27/two-communities-find-strength-amidst-shared-tragedy
Well, duh, the teens attended Pillager High School - what did you expect? 
[QUOTE=Folly]
If a lawful killing by a 3rd part is enough to prevent a felony murder conviction, I would imagine an unlawful killing by a 3rd party (or perhaps the burglary victim) would be enough to prevent a felony murder conviction as well.
[/QUOTE]
You have to read a bit further into the case. Kansas follows the “agency” rule for felony murder, where only a killing by someone guilty of the underlying felony implicates the rule.
Minnesota, conversely, follows a version of the proximate cause theory, which merely requires that the murder be the result of the underlying felony (as in the police shootout example).
I didn’t do very well in criminal law, so take this with a grain of salt. 
Even as a toss-away line, refrain from accusing other posters of lying in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
I thought it was funny. 
Where’s the “He should have stuck their heads on pikes as a deterrent” option? 
Come on, we’re not those English, err French barbarians.
(wow, they really were mean then)
Why is everyone assuming that the girl was inside the house and heard the gunshot? She could have been outside by the car, on lookout, when that happened, and then gone into the house later to see why her cousin was taking so long. (Based on the previous police encounter, that seems to be how they did things.)
It’s not clear at all how much time passed between the first shooting and the second.
It’s also not clear if he was telling the truth about anything that happened.
True. She may have come into the house calling her cousin’s name and the old man may have lured her down the stairs with a “Down here!” Who knows? It’s all speculative, but there are more plausible scenarios than one that has her rushing to the sound of gunfire.
Cite?? The only info reported so far is that the police investigated a suspicious car the night before and found the younger teen in it, claiming to have run out of gas and that the older teen went to get some. Nothing has been said about the older teen working as a “lookout” for anything.
The homeowner said he shot the first teen, then the girl came down the stairs “several minutes later”.
I think the point is that the homeowner is a crazy old man, and we have no idea whether he’s telling the truth.
And that sounds to me like a perfect story for someone who is acting as a lookout. Sit in the car and wait, and if the police come along, tell them you are out of gas.
How many minutes are in a “several”? 5? 15? 30? We just don’t know.
There is no reason to assume the girl was inside the house when the first shot was fired. In fact, it seems unlikely, because it seems unlikely she would have gone toward the sound of the gunshot, if she’d heard it.
If, instead, she had been outside in the car when it happened, she might not have heard it, at least not clearly enough to know what it was.
Why are you so invested in the idea that she knowingly went toward the gunfire?
Whats creepy is, the only police record of a break in at the old man’s house was in October, he says there were 5 others. In the case that he’s not lying, what reason would he have to not report them?
Premeditated revenge.
Invested? 
Because it’s pointless.
A few years ago, my house was broken into 3 times over a 2 week period. I only made one police report, because the cops really don’t do much. If you don’t have any new evidence (ie, got a look at the guy), and don’t need a report for insurance purposes, there really is no point.