# State v. Canola

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · April 7, 1977 · 73 N.J. 206

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701781

## Case

- **Full name:** State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leonel Canola, A/K/A Leon Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** April 7, 1977
- **Citations:** 73 N.J. 206; 374 A.2d 20; 1977 N.J. LEXIS 197
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Conford, Sullivan, Hughes
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701781

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, however, that killing of accomplice in skirmish was not in furtherance of the undertaking

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701781. Public record. Not legal advice.