holding, however, that killing of accomplice in skirmish was not in furtherance of the undertaking
How later courts described this case
- holding, however, that killing of accomplice in skirmish was not in furtherance of the undertaking
- 6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned
- “Most modern progressive thought in criminal jurisprudence favors restriction rather than expansion of the felony murder rule.”
- “Tort concepts of foreseeability and proximate cause have shallow relevance to culpability for murder in the first degree”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sullivan, J.
(concurring in result only). The practical result of the majority holding is that even though some innocent person or a police officer be killed during the commission of an armed robbery, the felon would bear no criminal responsibility of any kind for that killing as long as it was not at the hand of the felon or a confederate. The legislative intent, as I see it, is otherwise.
The thrust of our felony murder statute, N. J. S. A. 2A:113-1, is to hold the criminal liable for any killing which ensues during the commission of a felony, even though the felon, or a confederate, did not commit the actual killing. The only exception I would recognize would be the death of a co-felon, which could be classified as a justifiable homicide and not within the purview of the statute.
*227 The Legislature should act promptly to clarify the situation resulting from the majority opinion. If it does not extend the felony murder statute to encompass a killing during the commission of a felony not at the hand of the felon or confederate, it should, at least, provide that the felon be chargeable with manslaughter for such killing (in addition to liability for the felony)..
I therefore concur in the result but only for the reason stated above.
Justice Pashman joins this opinion concurring in result only.