People v. Phillips

Supreme Court of California · 1966 · Criminal Law

64 Cal. 2d 574 (1966)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawinherently dangerous felonyfelony murderimplied malicecausationsecond degree murdergrand theftfalse pretenses

Facts

An ophthalmologist advised the parents of eight-year-old Linda Epping that her only hope for survival was immediate removal of her affected eye, and the parents initially consented to the surgery. After meeting defendant, the parents testified that he assured them he could cure Linda without surgery and persuaded them to remove her from the hospital and place her under his care, charging substantial fees. Medical testimony supported that surgery on July 21 would have prolonged Linda's life by at least two months and possibly cured her. Defendant treated Linda for about three weeks, during which the tumor grew dramatically, and she later died of the cancer.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that a killing occurring in the perpetration of grand theft could constitute second degree felony murder. Also, whether there was sufficient causal connection between defendant's conduct and Linda's death to support criminal liability.

Rule

Only felonies that are inherently dangerous to human life may support application of the second degree felony-murder rule. In deciding whether a felony is inherently dangerous, courts examine the elements of the felony in the abstract, not the particular facts of the case; grand theft is not inherently dangerous to life. A defendant may still proximately cause death by significantly shortening a victim's life, and later conduct by others does not break causation when the defendant's conduct already measurably reduced the victim's chances of survival.

🔒

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, Dana Kerr convinces several retirees to transfer money to her by falsely promising access to a nonexistent medical housing program. One victim delays entering a hospital while waiting for the promised placement and dies from a worsening infection. The prosecutor seeks a second-degree felony-murder instruction based on grand theft by false pretenses.

Should the court give the requested felony-murder instruction?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, second-degree felony murder applies only when the underlying felony is inherently dangerous to human life, assessed by the elements of the felony in the abstract rather than the facts of the particular case. Grand theft is not inherently dangerous in the abstract, so a felony-murder instruction would be erroneous even if the defendant's actual scheme created serious danger.