That’s the felony murder rule which is IMO (and in the opinion most right thinking people) a travesty of justice. One of the reasons being a complete lack of mens rea for the murder. Even if the driver doesn’t even know the robber had a gun, or even if he wasn’t and it was the robber who gets killed by the cops it’s still a murder rap. Which is ridiculous
First degree murder varies by jurisdiction. In some, it is premeditated murder. In others, it is second degree murder plus various aggravating factors (e.g., murder of a police officer or other public servant).
As to motive, as others have noted, it is generally not an element of proof. Generally, prosecutors must prove a criminal act (actus reus), intent (mens rea), and causation between the two. As @Procrustus posted, motive should not be confused with intent. Motive is why someone committed an act; intent is the degree to which the commission was knowing and voluntary, as illustrated in the examples provided by @Chronos and @Andy_L.
That said, proving motive at trial can be helpful in establishing a prosecutor’s theory of the case and persuading a jury or judge. Effective trial work is often a matter of good (fact-based) storytelling.
Respectfully disagree. The felony murder statutes with which I’m familiar include an element of foreseeability, i.e., that it was foreseeable from the viewpoint of the defendant that grievous bodily harm or death could result from the felony in which they engaged. I have read that some jurisdictions may lack the foreseeability element and I would agree that is problematic and warrants amendment.
When it’s misused, yes. If the get away driver knows the bank robbers are armed I think it is fair to apply. That is not a comment on the general fairness of the justice system, I’m just pointing out that the felony murder rule makes sense in some cases.
Yep. I designed my examples to have one where intent was clear (going to a different table to get a fork and stabbing in the neck) but motive was unknown, and one where motive was clear but intent was (arguably) absent
But that doesn’t make it any less a travesty of justice. Hell you could make everyone who has a mustache guilty of murder and it would make sense in some cases, there have been plenty of mustachioed murderers.
I think that analogy goes a little too far. The mustache has nothing to do with the crime. Being the getaway driver does.
That depends - in my state, simply being under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not negate the ability to consent. The person must have either been drugged without their consent or be so under the influence that they are “physically helpless” which means unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness. So drunk people can in fact consent.
Right. Felony murder is supposed to require knowledge of a dangerous crime being committed that leads to a person’s death. A lack of rigor in the justice process allows felony murder to be charged and convictions to result without evidence of that knowledge by a defendant. It’s the same type of travesty of justice that occurs with many laws.
I was pointing out that saying a law is sometimes applied to people who are guilty does make it any less of a travesty of justify
[Moderating]
This is Factual Questions. Noting that the felony murder rule exists, and that a person can be convicted under it, as @smithsb did, is factual and on-topic. Noting that said rule is rare outside of the US, as @Northern_Piper did, is a slight digression, but still relevant and factual. The subsequent debate by @griffin1977 , @Ulysses , @TriPolar , and @Whack-a-Mole , about whether the felony murder rule is just, is not factual. If you wish to debate that further, start a new thread in GD.
As I understant the Candian criminal charge, the offense is “driving with a blood alcohol level over .08”. The only possible defense is “it isn’t”. (Or, “is the measuring unit correct?”) How or why it got there is irrelevant to conviction, but may be relevvant at sentencing.
There is also a charge of “impaired driving” possible, which is obviously unable to properly control a motor vehicle, which does not required measuring blood alcohol.
And, the Gordon Lightfoot defense does not work. Gord was pulled over by a cop who smelled alcohol on his breath. he was taken to the station where he blew over .08. His lawyer argued that just because it was over .08 at the station a half hour later did not necessarily mean it was into his bloodstream at that level when he was driving. The judge, presumably a really big fan, acquitted him. The appeal court fairly quickly reversed that and convicted him.