People v. Chun

Supreme Court of California · 2009 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawMurderFelony MurderMerger DoctrineImplied Malicesecond degree felony murdermerger doctrineimplied malice

Facts

Defendant was one of several occupants in a blue Honda from which gunfire was fired at an occupied Mitsubishi stopped at a light. Three different guns were used, all three occupants of the Mitsubishi were hit, one victim was killed, and defendant later admitted he was in the Honda and had fired a .38-caliber gun. At trial, the prosecution sought first degree murder, but the court also instructed on second degree felony murder using Penal Code section 246, shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, as the predicate felony. The jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, acquitted him of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle and related offenses, and found gang-related allegations true.

Issue

Is California's second degree felony-murder rule constitutionally valid despite not being expressly codified? If so, may shooting at an occupied motor vehicle under Penal Code section 246 serve as the predicate felony for second degree felony murder, or does it merge with the homicide as an assaultive offense?

Rule

California's second degree felony-murder rule is constitutionally valid because it is grounded in Penal Code section 188's statutory definition of implied malice as an interpretation of the phrase "abandoned and malignant heart." For merger purposes, all assaultive-type felonies merge with the homicide and cannot support a second degree felony-murder instruction. A felony is assaultive if its elements involve a threat of immediate violent injury, and the merger inquiry looks to the elements of the crime, not the particular facts.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Noel Vega is charged with second degree murder after a death occurred during his commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life but not listed in the first degree felony-murder statute. Noel argues the charge must be dismissed because second degree felony murder is an unconstitutional common law crime created by judges rather than the Legislature.

How should the court rule on Noel's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that California's second degree felony-murder rule is constitutionally valid because it is grounded in Penal Code section 188's definition of implied malice as an interpretation of the phrase 'abandoned and malignant heart.' The rule is not upheld as a free-standing common law crime, and the court rejected the claim that section 192 abolished it.