An interesting application of the "felony murder" rule is taking shape after a San Juan Capistrano attempted armed robbery of a jewelry store. Four men suspected in a botched San Juan Capistrano jewelry heist were arraigned Friday on attempted robbery and felony murder charges. Alan Keith Hunter, 39 of Moreno Valley; George Anthony Boozer, 36 of Apple Valley; James Stephan Paschall, 41, and Eddie Allen Clark Jr., 27, both of Gardena, were each being held in lieu of $1-million bail in connection with the June 24 holdup attempt.
The interesting thing about this situation is that no one at the jewelry store was killed, and none of the perpetrators had anything to do with causing the deaths. Instead, the dead men were shot by jewelry store employees during the attempted robbery.
The story has been reported as occurring when Robert Avery entered Monaco Jewelers with co-perpetrator Desmond Brown. Avery is alleged to have grabbed the store manager and pointed a gun at him. At that point the owner of the store entered the scene, with a gun, with which he immediately shot Avery and then Brown as Brown allegedly ran towards him. Avery and Brown died at the scene. Clark entered the store with Brown but immediately fled after Brown was shot. Hunter and Boozer are alleged to have been the "lookouts," while Paschall was alleged to have been the getaway driver. If true, the crimes committed by Paschall (accomplice to robbery as the "wheel man"), Boozer (accomplice as lookout), Hunter (accomplice as lookout), and Clark (accomplice as co-robber), would all normally be able to be prosecuted as if they were the perpetrator, as advancing the crime of the perpetrator in California is prosecutable under the same laws as being a perpetrator. And it is for this reason, that because of what the perpetrators did, i.e. armed robbery, all of the lookouts, wheelmen, and other accomplices who were aware of what the perpetrators were going to do and helped them do it, that all of the accomplices can be charged with felonies. And since, if someone dies while you are committing a felony (and the death is related to the crime you are committing) you can be charged with murder. This means that all of the accomplishes can be charged with murder, even though it was the principal perpetrators themselves who died.
The policy behind the felony murder rule is obvious. The law intends to discourage people from committing felonies or helping people commit felonies by making them pay a heavy price for the consequences of their actions. However, even in the modern criminal justice system, in which defendants have fewer and fewer rights, there still exists justice to the extent that if a law seems unjust, it probably is, and thus there's probably a way to achieve justice for a person if you hire a good criminal defense attorney.
In a case such as the OC jewelry store robbery, the defendant should argue that they weren't the "principal" in the matter, and that they didn't know what the perpetrators were going to do or why they asked to be dropped off. Whether this is effective is dependent upon the skill of their attorneys in putting the distance between their client and the perpetrators, including an argument that they had no idea the perpetrators either had guns or were planning on robbing the jewelry store. This is always a difficult assertion to make, and it will need to be backed with other evidence, which could consist of the testimony from other witnesses that no one had any idea that Mr. __was carrying a gun, and/or that all 3 men who exited the car said they were running into the mall to by something. Whether it works or not, in the presence of a jury who wants revenge, is another question altogether.
