People v. Aaron

Supreme Court of Michigan · 1980 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawMurderFelony MurderMaliceFirst-Degree Murderfelony murdermalice aforethoughtfirst-degree murder

Facts

In Thompson, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder after a death occurred during an armed robbery, and the jury was instructed that intent to rob alone sufficed without proof of malice. In Wright, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder for setting a fire that caused two deaths, and the jury was instructed that proof the killings occurred during arson was enough for first-degree murder. In Aaron, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder for a homicide during an armed robbery after the jury was told it could convict if the killing occurred during the commission or attempted commission of armed robbery. The legal problem in all three cases was that the juries were not required to find malice apart from the underlying felony.

Issue

Does Michigan recognize a felony-murder rule under which the intent to commit the underlying felony itself satisfies the malice element of murder, or must malice always be separately found by the trier of fact? Relatedly, does Michigan's first-degree murder statute itself create a statutory felony-murder rule, or does it merely elevate an already established murder to first degree when committed during an enumerated felony?

Rule

Michigan has no statutory felony-murder rule, and the common-law felony-murder rule is abolished. To convict a defendant of murder in Michigan, including where a killing occurs during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony, the prosecution must prove malice, meaning an intent to kill, an intent to do great bodily harm, or a wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the defendant's behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm; the issue of malice must always be submitted to the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Grand Rapids, Nolan Pierce snatched a cashier's bag from a parking-lot attendant and ran. As he shoved past the attendant, the attendant fell backward, struck his head on a curb, and died hours later. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if Nolan intended to commit robbery and the death occurred during the robbery, that alone established murder.

Under the controlling Michigan rule, was the instruction proper?

Explanation. The instruction was improper. Michigan abolished the common-law felony-murder rule, so intent to commit the underlying felony does not itself satisfy malice. Malice remains an essential element of every murder and must be found by the jury as intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the conduct is to cause death or great bodily harm. The jury may consider the nature and circumstances of the robbery, but may not be told that robbery intent alone establishes murder.