Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

State v.

Contreras
Notes
This case arises out of an incident at the Roundhouse Motel in Carson City on
August 23, 1998. Based on the limited record submitted, it appears that prior to the
incident resulting in the charged crimes, respondent Evans was involved in a separate
altercation at the motel. The police arrived and investigated that incident. Later that
evening, apparently in retaliation for the previous altercation, respondent Evans
allegedly gathered the other respondents, and they proceeded back to the motel with
metal and wooden clubs. Respondents knocked on a motel room door, and when the
door opened, rushed into the room and proceeded to beat Samuel Resendiz and Carlos
Lainez. Resendiz died as a result of his injuries.

Issues
#1. Whether the defendants should be convicted with first degree or second-degree
murder.
Reasoning
This is a first-degree murder, because not only was this event premeditated,
but the defendants brought weapons with intentions to cause death or even seriously
bodily injury. As soon as the victims opened the door, the respondents rushed into the
room and proceeded to beat the victims, resulting in death. This is sufficient evidence
to convict the defendants with first-degree murder.
The intent required to make the entry into the motel room a burglary, namely,
the intent to apply force and violence to the victims, is the same intent that supports
the felony-murder charge. The felony-murder rule raises a homicide to first-degree
murder without requiring the State to prove the traditional first-degree murder
elements of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation.
Holding
We, therefore, hold that the district court was incorrect in dismissing the
felony-murder charge against the respondents.
State v. Sophophone
Notes
Sophophone and three other individuals conspired to and broke into a house in
Emporia. The residents reported the break-in to the police.
Police officers responded to the call, saw four individuals leaving the back of
the house, shined a light on the suspects, identified themselves as police officers, and
ordered them to stop. The individuals, one being Sophophone, started to run away.
One officer ran down Sophophone, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police car.
Other officers arrived to assist in apprehending the other individuals as they
were running from the house. An officer chased one of the suspects later identified as
Somphone Sysoumphone. Sysoumphone crossed railroad tracks, jumped a fence, and
then stopped. The officer approached with his weapon drawn and ordered
Sysoumphone to the ground and not to move. Sysoumphone was lying face down but
raised up and fired at the officer, who returned fire and killed him. It is not disputed

that Sysoumphone was one of the individuals observed by the officers leaving the
house than had been burglarized.
Issues
#1. Whether Sophophone is responsible for the felony murder of his co-felon,
Sysoumphone.
#2. Whether Sophophone can be convicted of a felony murder.
Reasoning
This "intervening cause" or "break in circumstances" argument has no merit
under the facts of this case. We have held in numerous cases that "time, distance, and
the casual relationship between the underlying felony and a killing are factors to be
considered in determining whether the killing occurs in the commission of the
underlying felony and the defendant is therefore subject to the felony-murder rule".
The overriding fact, which exists in our case, is that neither Sophophone nor
any of his accomplices "killed" anyone. The law enforcement officer acted lawfully in
committing the act, which resulted in the death of a co-felon.
We hold that under the facts of this case where the killing resulted from the
lawful acts of a law enforcement officer in attempting to apprehend a co-felon,
Sophophone is not criminally responsible for the resulting death of Somphone
Sysoumphone, and his felony-murder conviction must be reversed.
Holding
Although Sophophone is guilty with burglary, he is not guilty of his felonymurder conviction.
Case Problem #29
Chris cannot be liable for felony murder because, a person can
be convicted of murder if the killing was done intentionally.
However, Chris did not kill intentionally. Chris was in a sober state,
and the whether just happened to be a problem. Chris can be
charged with the possession of illegal drugs and transporting illegal
drugs, but cannot be charged with the felony murder of his
accomplice Kendal.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen