Canola and a few other guys were
robbing a store. The storeowner pulled out a gun and killed one of the
robbers (Lloredo).
Lloredo the robbery shot the
storeowner dead too.
Canola and the other two
surviving robbers were arrested and charged with (among other things), felony
murder.
Because Canola was
committing a crime, he is culpable for any deaths that occurred in
furtherance of that crime.
The Trial Court found the
three guilty of felony murder for
the death of the storeowner and the death of Lloredo, and sentenced them
to 2 life sentences each. They appealed.
Canola et. al. argued that
they shouldn't be culpable for Lloredo's death because he was a cofelon.
The Appellate Court upheld the
conviction for the storeowner's death, but dismissed the count for
Lloredo's death. The prosecutor appealed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
affirmed and struck the conviction for Lloredo's death.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
looked to the historical common-law and found that traditionally, felony
murder was limited to situations
where the defendant or his confederate did the actual killing.
The Court looked to the
Statute, which the found did not compel felony murder to be extended to situations where a third
party did the killing.
In a concurrence, it was
argued that the real issue was that the storeowner shooting Lloredo was a
case of justifiable homicide and is
therefore not a crime, so Canola can't be punished for something that
isn't a crime.
