WPCT J`i ቏VZဈKGҋVnAPb [O-?,1r+Xb+<@3E.O&Kնz̀`vb<@KH\*ۮ,N$3m3 ņr(t2Y>^op31CCF!q`/Au/Whuњzfo#֐rw3flv.$ݓFs\ÝJS7svc83DPdNv5C{[P>;{5:gg"x..p61= RbȧyEV背 =,)0[sBgta$E/䜆 O,dqdag7+BHWN\>&P85ӏȉ҈q;NV>ț#fU/N/ %} 0Y 1 72c 1u 72  0c< 0w 0 0 0@ 0 0 0 0E 1 72RNw4 m 0D 0N qX 0U 0! 0" 0" 0# 0>$ 0$ 0% 0E& 0& 0' 0|( 0/) 0) 0* 0$+ 0+ 0T, 0, 0- 0q. 0!/ 0/ 0o0 0 1 01 072 02 0s3 014 0>4 0-5 0%6 07 07 08 09 0: 0I; 02< 0M< 0:I= 0Y= 0_= 0 ;> 0E? 0@ B*B D/B D+&C 0QC D/WE 0E 06TF 0F 0:G BG 0^G 0<GH 1eHU6HU>IU*\IbII P ZP*Q(?Q?Q?Q?QJgQ*SSSSSSSSSSSSSS^ SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0Shp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,9?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;$2  A  .3  0  (O$0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#(cJ$0  0` (#(#2  A  .3  0 ` (#` (#(w$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  A  .3  0 (# (#(g$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2  A  .3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2  A  .3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2  A  .3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2  A  .3  0p(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2   A   .3  0p(#p(#  yAGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets ListWd0:i+003|x U(%$  1  (O$ g $XXUSUS.,   `   1    _ԀXXԀThe_Randle_appellatecourtupheldthefelonymurderinstructions(which,  likethoseinRobertson,submitted246.3asapredicateoffense),butreversedthe  murderconvictionbasedontheerroneousrefusalofinstructionsonimperfect  defenseofanother.TheAttorneyGeneralpetitionedforreviewontheimperfectself  defenseissue,buttheAnswerraisedthevariousfelonymurderissues(incl.merger, t presumptionofmalice,anddueprocess/retroactivity).BecausetheSupremeCourt `  grantedreviewwithoutexpresslydesignatingissues,bothsidesbriefshavetreated L  alltheissues(bothimperfectdefenseandfelonymurderrelated)asbeforetheCourt. 8  (Cal.RulesofCourt,rule29.1(b)(2)(B).)*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?]%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7P(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dN)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7R(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?]%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7P(X75+ ` hp x 5  N)2dxd0KS.SampleK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable d: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ()*+,-./ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial- -  $XXUSUS.,   `   2    _ԀXXInadditiontotheattachedportions,the_Randle_supplementalbriefalso  includestwoadditionalRobertsonrelatedarguments:(1)that,becauseRobertsons  reformulationofthe mergertestdependsuponthespecificfactsofthecase,Sixth  Amendmentprinciples(_Apprendi_,etc.)requirejurydeterminationandinstructions  onwhetherthefelonyhadtherequisite collateralpurpose;and(2)thatRobertsons t revisionofthemergertestrepresentsanunforeseeablejudicialenlargementof `  criminalliabilityandcannotbeappliedretroactivelytoapreRobertsonhomicide. L  ЀThosetwoargumentsarenotincludedinthesematerialsbecausetheyaremore 8  dependentuponthespecificpredicatefelonyatissue(246.3)andthefactual $ t circumstancesandinstructionsofthe_Randle_case.However,thecomplete_Randle_  `  briefisavailablefromtheauthoruponrequest(4c O  5  jbo@fdap.org6O  7 B). XX\    L  #  \ؓ##XX t#StarPageciteas((Cite as: 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, *256)mailto:jboc@fdap.orgmailto:jbo@fdap.org @ $XXUSUS.,   `   3    _ԀXXAsnotedearlier(fn.2),thecomplete_Randle_supplementalbriefisavailable  onrequest(contact4h ( O  5  jboc@fdap.org6iO}  7 ).#XX#mailto:jboc@fdap.org|-2 (u(3$ !XXUSUS.,     `   1   !XXUSUS.,  _   RZQ^8dd8  FELONYMURDERREVISITED:#QRZk#   _   @NEWOPPORTUNITIESFORCHALLENGESTOCALIFORNIAS L NONSTATUTORYSECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDERRULE ` (&OTHERRECENTFELONYMURDERDEVELOPMENTS)  $t #@P#D  Preparedby 8  J.BradleyOConnell 6  StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject 4  4b O  5  jboc@fdap.org6O'  7 UԀ 2  January2005  0  sXX  I.0  JUSTICESINVITEREEXAMINATIONOFNONSTATUTORYSECOND j  DEGREEFELONYMURDERDOCTRINE. V (#(# 0  InPeoplev.Robertson(2004)34Cal.4th156,adividedCaliforniaSupremeCourtheld,43, . thattheIreland mergerdoctrinedidnotbarsubmissionofgrosslynegligentdischargeof  afirearm(Pen.Code246.3)asapredicateforseconddegreefelonymurder.The   mergerholdingitselfisdiscussedingreaterdetailinPartIIC,below.ButRobertsonis  morenoteworthyforadifferentreason: ThreemembersoftheCourt(JusticesBrown,  Moreno,and_Werdegar_)announcedtheirwillingnesstoreexaminethemore ~ fundamentalquestionofthelegitimacyofCalifornias nonstatutoryseconddegree j felonymurderdoctrine. Z(#(# 0  Fromthe1960'sthroughthe1980's,anumberofCaliforniaSupremeCourtdecisions 2 describedfelonymurderingeneralandseconddegreefelonymurderinparticularasa n  disfavoreddoctrinewhichwastobegiventhe narrowestpossibleapplication.Onat  Z leasttwooccasions,individualjustices(ChiefJusticeBird,Justice_Panelli_)wentfartherand F suggestedthattheCourtshouldabandonthedoctrinealtogether.Thetopichadlargelybeen 2 abandonedforthepast15yearsuntiltheindividualconcurringanddissentingopinionsin  Robertsonplaceditbackonthetable.Thiswasasurprisingdevelopment!bothbecauseno   suchissueshadbeenraisedintheRobertsonbriefingandbecausethecurrentcriticsofthe ! doctrineappeartospanthecurrentCourtsideologicalspectrum."(#(# 0  JusticeBrownsdissentinRobertsonlaysoutthemostextensivecritiqueofseconddegree j$! felonymurder.Justice_Werdegar_ԀwroteashorterdissentstatingheragreementwithJustice V% " Brownsposition.Justice_Kennard_,thethirdRobertsondissenter,confinedheropinionto B&!# themergerissue;sinceshebelievedthatdoctrinerequiredreversal,shetooknopositionon .'~"$ theoverallvalidityofthedoctrine.However,JusticeMoreno,amemberoftheRobertson (j#% majority,wroteaconcurringopinion,reviewingthehistoryofthedoctrineandquestioning )V$& itssoundness.Heindicatedhisownwillingnesstoconsiderabandonmentofthedoctrine, )B%' butconcurredintheRobertsonmajoritysdispositionbecausetheissuehadnotbeenbriefed. *.&( Meanwhile,theRobertsonmajorityopinionitselfsaidnothingonthesubject. +') Consequently,thereappeartobeatleastthreejusticeswillingtoreexamineseconddegree ,(* felonymurder,andpossiblyafourth(Justice_Kennard_).#-(+(#(#: #Ї0  Itisnowuptocriminalappellatedefenderstotakeupthejusticesinvitationandtopresent  theCourtwiththeappropriatecase(s)toreexamineseconddegreefelonymurder from  scratch.Theauthorofthesematerialscurrentlyhasanotherfelonymurdercasependingon  reviewwhichcouldbeavehicleforconsiderationofsomeoftheseissues.Peoplev._Randle_, t S117370(formerappellate_opn_.,109#XX#XX_Cal.App_.4th#XX##XXԀ313).Itisnotentirelyclearwhichissues ` theSupremeCourtintendstoaddressin_Randle_._ %  1      _ԀButtheSupremeCourthasgrantedfiling L  ofasupplementalbriefrelatingthebroadquestionsraisedintheRobertsonconcurrenceand 8  dissentstoargumentsalreadypendingin_Randle_.$ t(#(# 0  Themostbroadlyapplicablesectionsofthe_Randle_supplementalbriefareattached,andthe  L  mainargumentswillonlybesummarizedverybrieflyhere.__  %  2      _ԀTheissuesrequireappreciation  8  oftheverydifferentbasesofthefirstandseconddegreefelonymurderdoctrinesandthe $  relationshipofeachdoctrinetomaliceaforethought.InPeoplev.Dillon(1984)34#XX#XXCal.3d#XX^#XX   441,theSupremeCourtrejecteda_Sandstrom_argumentthatthefirstdegreefelonymurder   theoryamountedtoanunconstitutionalpresumptionofmalice.TheSupremeCourt   concludedthatfirstdegreefelonymurderwasstatutory.Section189(whichenumerates   robbery,rape,burglaryandotherpredicatefeloniesforfirstdegreefelonymurder) p establishesaformoffirstdegreemurderwhichdoesnotincludeanyelementofmalice. \ BecausetheLegislaturehadnotmademaliceanelementofthatformofmurder,therewas H nounconstitutionalpresumptionofanelementoftheoffense.ButtheSupremeCourt 4 emphasizedthatseconddegreefelonymurderwasajudiciallycreateddoctrinewithno  statutorybasis.󀀀(Dillon,supra,atp.472fn.19.)Ithasrepeatedthatdistinctioninother  cases;eventheRobertsonmajorityopinionreferstoseconddegreefelonymurderasa   commonlawratherthanastatutorydoctrine.t(#(# 0  TheDillonopinionbeggedaquestionwhichhasgoneunansweredfortheintervening20 L  years.Ifseconddegreefelonymurderisnotstatutory,whatistherelationshipbetweenthat 8  theoryandmaliceaforethought,whichsections187and188makeanelementofevery $ t murder(exceptfirstdegreefelonymurder,per189)?Anddoesthisdistinctionbetween  ` thefirstandseconddegreefelonymurdertheoriesnecessarilymeanthatthelatter,non  L  statutorydoctrineisvulnerabletoa_Sandstrom_/presumptionchallenge,eventhoughthe  8  formerisnot?Asreflectedintheattached_Randle_supplementalbrief,thesequestions $  suggestan either/orframeworkforchallengingtheentireseconddegreefelonymurder   doctrine: (#(#   0 ` The eitherargument(_Sandstrom_presumption).󀀀Sincethereisnostatute   comparableto189,malicemuststillbeanelementofseconddegreefelony p murder.Consequently,assuggestedbythelanguageofmostoftheSupremeCourts \ prioropinions,theseconddegreefelonymurdertheorymust positor imputethis H necessaryelementfromthecommissionofaninherentlydangerousfelony.But,if 4 thosecharacterizationsareaccurate,thenthetheoryoperatesasanunconstitutional  p presumptionofmalice,contraryto_Sandstrom_Ԁv.Montanaanditsprogeny.(_Randle_  \ Supp.Br.PartIB&C)H` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#The orargument(separationofpowers).In_Randle_andothercases,theAttorney   Generalhasopposedthe_Sandstrom_argumentonthegroundthat,likefirstdegree   felonymurder,seconddegreefelonymurderisanoffensewhichrequiresnoelement  ofmaliceaforethought.Ifthatisso,thentheentiredoctrineisunconstitutionalon  adifferentground!asaviolationofseparationofpowers(Cal.Const.art.III,3;  Pen.Code6).Judicialinventionofarulewhicheliminatesastatutorily l prescribedelementofanoffense(themaliceelementofmurder)istantamountto X  judicialrecognitionofacommonlawornonstatutoryoffense.Thatistheverykind D! ofjudicialusurpationoftheLegislaturesrolewhichsection6prohibits. 0"  (SeparationofpowersprinciplesalsofiguredheavilyinJusticeBrownsRobertson #l! dissentand,toalesserdegree,inJusticeMorenosconcurrence.)(_Randle_Supp.Br. $X" PartID)$D #` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Legislativeintent&otherpolicyarguments.󀀀Manyofthecritiquesofsecond &"% degreefelonymurderintheseparateRobertsontermswereframedmoreinpolicy '#& thaninconstitutionalterms.Thejusticessuggestedthattheruleundermined (#' legislativeintent!withoutexplicitlycastingitasaconstitutionalseparationof )$( powersviolation.Additionally,throughoutthedissentsandtheconcurrence,the |*%) justicessuggestedthatthedoctrinedoesnotfillanytrueneed,sinceinmostcasesin h+&* willbeeasyenoughtoprovemalicewithoutrelianceonfelonymurder.Butit  createsanomaliesbytreatingnegligentconductmoreseverelythanintentional  assaultsandbyeliminatingthemaliceinquiryinthecasesinwhichitwouldbemost  important.ForexampleasJusticeBrownremarked, Ittakesnogeniustodiscern t thatarulethatrelievesthePeopleoftheneedtoprovemalicebecausethedefendant ` assertshedidnotharboranyisproblematic.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4thatpp. L  189190(Brown,J.,dis._opn_.),emphasisinoriginal.)Consequently,inadditionto 8  the either/orpairofconstitutionalchallenges(presumptionorseparationof $ t powers),briefsshouldalsoinvitetheCourttoabandonorcurtailthedoctrineon  ` policygrounds.BecauseitisadoctrineoftheCourtsowncreation,theCourtitself  L  hasthepowertorepudiateormodifyit.Ideally,theselegislativeintentandpolicy  8  argumentsshouldbetailoredtothespecificpredicatefelonyatissueortoother $  aspectsoftheinstructions.Forexample,theattached_Randle_briefarguesthat   extensionoffelonymurdertosection246.3subvertslegislativeintentbecausethat   developmentwasunforeseeableinlightofthecaselawonthebooksatthetimeof   theLegislaturesenactmentofthatfelonyin1988.(_Randle_Supp.Br.PartIIA) ` (#` (# 0  Asmentionedabove,itisnotclearwhethertheSupremeCourtwillactuallyreachthese \ issuesin_Randle_.Inthemeantime,sincetheRobertsonopinionsputthefutureofsecond H degreefelonymurder inplay, appellatecounselshouldchallengethelegitimacyofthis 4 doctrineineveryseconddegreemurdercaseinwhichfelonymurderinstructionswere $t given ,regardlessofthespecificpredicatefelonyinvolved.WhileRobertsonand_Randle_ ` havebothinvolvedsection246.3,thebroaderdoctrinalcritiquesdiscussedherearenot P limitedtothatoffenseortoothersinvolvingpossible mergerarguments.Theyarisefrom < thesimplefactthatCaliforniasstatutesrequiremaliceasanelementofseconddegree ( murder,whilethis creatureofjudicialinventiondoesnot.Additionally,giventhestated  willingnessofJusticesBrown,_Werdegar_,andMorenotoreexamineseconddegreefelony  murder(aswellasthehopethatJustice_Kennard_Ԁmaybepersuadableaswell),counselshould  becreativeinfashioningadditionalchallengestothedoctrineanditsapplicationtospecific  felonies,inadditiontotheargumentssketchedhere.t(#(#  II.0  OTHERRECENTNOTEWORTHYFELONYMURDERDEVELOPMENTS .L!(#(# 0  InadditiontotheintriguingpossibilitiesraisedbytheRobertsonopinions,therehavebeen (#x! anumberofothersignificantrulingsoverthepastyearorsoonvariousaspectsoffelony $d" murder(bothfirstandseconddegree).%P #(#(#  (93" "  0   =2  A  .3  0` (#(#  ScopeofFirstDegreeFelonyMurder  =>݌&("%` (#` (# Ќ  0   Drivebymurderdistinctfromfelonymurder.󀀀Peoplev.Chavez(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th ($' 379.Immediatelyafteritsenumerationofthepredicatefeloniesforfirstdegreemurder,Pen. )$( Code189(a)continues: oranymurderwhichisperpetratedbymeansofdischarginga *%) firearmfromamotorvehicleintentionallyatanotherpersonoutsideofthevehiclewiththe t+&* intenttoinflictdeath,ismurderofthefirstdegree.But,pertheChavezcourt, driveby  shootingisnotpartofthatlistoffelonymurderpredicates#XX#XXԀandisnotwithinthefirstdegree  felonymurderrule. Thedrivebyshootingclauserequiresanintenttoinflictdeathwhich  isneveranelementoffelonymurder.Consequently,itwaserrortodeliverfelonymurder t instructionsindicatingthatitwasirrelevantwhetherthedrivebykillingwas intentional, ` unintentionaloraccidental.Thoseinstructionswereinconsistentwiththecorrect L  instructionsrequiringintenttoinflictdeath.(ButerrorfoundharmlessunderChapman.)8 (#(#  " "  0   lD2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ScopeofSecondDegreeFelonyMurder  lDD݌ `` (#` (# Ќ  0  Veh.Code2800.2?󀀀Peoplev.Howard,S108353(arguedinSupremeCourt,Nov.4,  8  2004).TheSupremeCourtiscurrentlyconsideringwhetherevadinganofficerwith wilful $  orwantondisregardforthesafetyofpersonsorproperty(2800.2)isan inherently   dangerousfelonysubjecttoseconddegreefelonymurderrule. (#(# 0  Compare:Veh.Code2800.3notwithinfelonymurder.󀀀Peoplev.Jones(2000)82   Cal.App.4th663.Evadinganofficerresultingindeathorseriousbodilyinjury(2800.3) p cannotsupportfelonymurderliabilitybecausetheonlymentalstaterequiredistheintentto \ evade,andtheconductwouldbeamisdemeanor(2800.1)iftherehadbeennoinjuryor H death.Unlike2800.2(currentlyunderreviewinHoward),2800.2doesnotrequire wilful 4 orwantondisregardforsafety. p(#(#  " "  0   I2  C  .3  0` (#(#  MergerDoctrine  IJ݌H` (#` (# Ќ  0  Grosslynegligentdischargeoffirearm(Pen.Code246.3)notbarredby mergerdoctrine.   Peoplev.Robertson(2004)34Cal.4th156.Asnotedearlier,themajorityopinionin   RobertsonheldthattheIreland mergerdoctrinedidnotprecludeuseofgrosslynegligent  dischargeofafirearm(246.3)asapredicateforseconddegreefelonymurder(atleast  underthespecificcircumstancesofthatcase).ButtheCourtreiteratedthatthemergerrule  wouldcontinuetobarsubmissionofassaultwithadeadlyweaponasabasisforfelony l murderliability.Asarguedinthevariousdissents(andpassinglyacknowledgedinthe X  majorityopinion),thismeansthatalessculpabledefendantwhokillsnegligentlymaybe D! heldstrictlyliableforfelonymurder,withoutthenecessityforproofofmalice.Butamore 0"  culpabledefendantwhointentionallyfiresatthevictimcanstillrequiretheprosecutionto #l! provemaliceandcanstilltakeadvantageofmalicenegatinggroundsformanslaughter(heat $X" ofpassion&imperfectselfdefense).$D #(#(# 0  AdditionalargumentsarisingfromRobertsonsrewritingof mergertest.󀀀Inrejectingthe &"% mergerchallengetosubmissionof246.3inRobertson,themajoritysubstantiallyaltered '#& thestandardsgoverningthemergerdoctrine.Thosechangesshouldgiverisetoatleasttwo (#' furtherarguments.Boththedueprocess/retroactivityandApprendiargumentssketched )$(  belowhavebeenraisedinthebriefinginPeoplev._Randle_,S117370(althoughthoseportions |*%) arenotincludedintheattachedexcerpts).g %  3      #XXA#XX(#(#     0  0` (#(#Dueprocess/retroactivity.󀀀TheRobertsonmajorityopinionreviveda collateraland  independentpurposetestwhichtheSupremeCourthaddisapprovedjust9years t earlierintheCourtmostrecentmergercase,Peoplev.Hansen(1995)9Cal.4th300 ` (alsoa43opinion).Forthereasonsdiscussedinthesupersededappellateopinion L  inRobertson(formerly109#XXDS#XX_Cal.App_.4th#XXU#XXԀ1740),properapplicationoftheHansen 8  analysiswouldbaranyuseof246.3asafelonymurderpredicatebecausethatoffense $ t necessarilyincludesassaultiveaswellasmerelynegligentshootings.Because  ` Robertsonaltersthemergerstandardinawaythatallowsfelonymurderliabilityfor  L  anoffensewhichwouldhavebeenbarredunderthepriorcaselaw(Hansen),it  8  representsanunforeseeablejudicialenlargementofcriminalliability.Consequently, $  dueprocessprinciples(_Bouie_Ԁv.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347;etc.)should   barretroactiveapplicationofRobertsonsrevisedmergertesttoanyhomicide   committedpriortothefinalityoftheSupremeCourtsRobertsonopinion(Sept.18,   2004). ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#_Apprendi_/righttojurytrialon collateralpurpose.Aswiththequestionofwhether \ anoffenseis inherentlydangerous,initspriormergeropinions,theCalifornia H SupremeCourthadruledcategoricallyonwhetheraparticularstatutoryoffensewas 4 subjecttothemergerdoctrine.But,asappliedinRobertson,the collateralpurpose  p standardappearstodependuponthespecificfactsofthecase.Themajorityheldthat  \ Robertsonspurposeinfiringtofrightenthevictimswasanindependentpurpose H whichdistinguishedthenegligentshootingtherefromthekindoftraditionalassault 4 subjecttothemergerdoctrine.Throughouttheopinion,themajoritygroundedits   dispositionon thefactsofthepresentcase.Thefactspecificcharacterof   RobertsonsmergertestshouldimplicatetheSixthAmendmentrighttojurytrial  (under_Apprendi_,_Blakely_,andotherauthorities):Becauseasection246.3offense  maybethebasisoffelonymurderliabilityonlyifthedefendanthadsome   independentorcollateralpurpose,dependingonthefactsofthecase,theSixth l Amendmentshouldrequiresubmissionofthe collateralpurposerequirementtothe X  jury.D!` (#` (#  " "  0   `2  D  .3  0` (#(#  Other_Apprendi_Issues  ` a݌#l!` (#` (# Ќ  0  Nojurytrialrighton inherentlydangerouscharacteroffelony,whereestablishedbyprior $D # caselaw.Peoplev.Schaefer(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th893.Instructionsthat %0!$ methamphetaminemanufactureisaninherentlydangerousfelonyforseconddegreefelony &"% murderpurposesdidnotviolate_Apprendi_.Priorcaselawhasestablishedmethamphetamine '#& manufacturesstatusas inherentlydangerousasamatteroflaw.Becausethiswasasettled (#' questionoflawratherthana contestedissueoffact,_Apprendi_didnotrequirejury  determinationofwhethermethamphetaminemanufacturewasinherentlydangerousinthe  abstract.(Note,however,thatthisrationaleshouldnotapplytoaputativepredicatefelony  whichhadnotalreadybeenclassifiedasinherentlydangerousinpublishedcaselawpriorto t trial.)`(#(#  " "  0   ҕf2  E  .3  0` (#(#  RelationofKillingtoFelony! ComplicityStandard  ҕff݌8 ` (#` (# Ќ  0  Adoptionof logicalnexusstandardof complicity.Peoplev._Cavitt_(2004)33Cal.4th  ` 187._Cavitt_clarifiedthe complicityaspectoffirstdegreefelonymurder!thetestfor  L  determining a_nonkiller_sliabilityforthefelonymurdercommittedbyanother.(Id.atp.  8  196,emphasisinoriginal.)TheSupremeCourtaddressedthetensionbetweendifferent $  formulationsoftheruleappearinginpriorcases.Contrarytooftrepeatedlanguagein   Peoplev.Vasquez(1875)49Cal.560,_Cavitt_holdsthatfelonymurderliabilityfora   _nonkiller_Ԁdoesnotrequirethatthecofeloncommittedthehomicide infurtheranceoftheir   commonpurposetorob.ButtheCourtalsorejectedtheAttorneyGeneralsmuchlooser   formulationwhich wouldrequireonlyatemporalconnectionbetweenthehomicideandthe p underlyingfelonybutwouldnototherwiserequireany logicalconnectionbetweenthe \ two.(_Cavitt_,supra,atpp.200201.)H(#(# 8  8`   \XXXXWeholdinsteadthatthefelonymurderruledoesnotapplyto  p _nonkillers_Ԁwheretheactresultingindeathiscompletelyunrelatedto  \ theunderlyingfelonyotherthanoccurringatthesametimeandplace. H UnderCalifornialaw,theremustbealogicalnexusi.e.,morethan 4 merecoincidenceoftimeandplacebetweenthefelonyandtheact   resultingindeathbeforethefelonymurderrulemaybeappliedtoa   _nonkiller_.Evidencethatthekillingfacilitatedoraidedtheunderlying  felonyisrelevantbutisnotessential.#XXX\Xm#\XXXX[]Wealsoholdthatthe  requisitetemporalrelationshipbetweenthefelonyandthehomicidal  actexistsevenifthe_nonkiller_Ԁisnotphysicallypresentatthetimeof l thehomicide,aslongasthefelonythatthe_nonkiller_Ԁcommittedor X  attemptedtocommitandthehomicidalactarepartofonecontinuous D! transaction.(_Cavitt_,supra,atp.187,emphasisadded.)0" ` x` x #XXX\Xp#0  Adequacyofinstructions.Peoplev._Dominguez_(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th1270{modified, $X" Jan.12,2005(H022727)}._Cavitt_heldthatthestandardinstructiononaider/abettorliability $D # forfelonymurder,_CALJIC_Ԁ8.27, adequatelyapprisedthejuryoftheneedforalogical %0!$ nexusbetweenthefeloniesandthehomicide(thoughitdidntusethatterm)and thetrial &"% courthadno_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoclarifythelogicalnexusrequirement.(_Cavitt_,supra,33 '#& Cal.4thatp.203.)Butjustafewmonthslaterin_Dominguez_,theappellatecourtreversed (#' amurderconvictionwhere:(1)thejurorsreceivedalmostnoinstructionsonthenecessary )$( relationship,exceptthat thekillingoccurredduringthecommissionofthefelony(rape); |*%) (2)thetrialcourtinexplicablyfailedtogive_CALJIC_Ԁ8.27,despiteadefenserequest;and, h+&* mostimportantly,(3)thejurorsexpressedconfusiononthesubject,butthecourtfailedto  provideanyclarification.Thejurorsspecificallyasked, Did_Dominguez_Ԁonlyneedtobe  presentatthetimeof[thevictims]death,ordidheneedtokillherhimself.Weareclear  [sic]abouttherapeelementofthecrime.(Emphasisadded.) \XXXXEvenifthedefensehadnot t requestedaninstruction,adutytoinstructarosewhenthejuryitselfsought% ` #XXX\Xz#%`%{% a %af{\XXXXguidance. ` (Citing#XXX\X{#Pen.Code\XXXXԀ1138)Theerrorwasprejudicialbecausetheunanswered #XXX\X{#\XXXXquestion L  establishesdirectlyandwithoutneedofinferencethatthejurorswereseriouslyconsidering 8  thepossibilitythatdefendant'sinvolvementinthekillingdidnotgobeyondmerepresence $ t atthescene,contrarytothe_Cavitt_requirementofalogicalnexus.#XXX\X|# `(#(# 0  F.0` (#(#AccidentalDeathofAccomplice  8 ` (#` (# 0  Firstdegreefelonymurder(arson).󀀀Peoplev._Billa_(2003)31Cal.4th1064. While   committingthearson,oneoftheconspiratorscaughtfireandburnedtodeath.Supreme   Courtupholdsfelonymurderliabilityfortheothercoconspiratorsonthescene. The   felonymurderruleappliestodeathofcohortasmuchastothedeathofaninnocentperson.   Althoughthedoctrinedoesntapplywhenthevictimofthepredicatefelonykillsoneofthe p confederates,aconfederatesaccidentaldeathduringthefelonydoescomeswithintherule \ !atleast,whentheotherparticipantsareatthesceneatthetime.SupremeCourt H distinguishesthecontraryresultinPeoplev._Ferlin_(1928)203Cal.3d587,becausein_Ferlin_ 4 thedefendant(thoughaconspiratorinthearson)wasntpresentatthescene.(Court  p  _leave[s_]foranotherdaywhether_Ferlin_wascorrectlydecidedonitsfacts.) \(#(# 0  Seconddegreefelonymurder(methamphetaminemanufacture).󀀀Peoplev.Schaefer(2004) 4 118_Cal.App_.4th893._Billa_rationaleisequallyapplicabletoaccidentaldeathofa   confederateduringan inherentlydangerousfelonysubjecttoseconddegreefelonymurder   rule(flashfireduringoperationofamethamphetaminelab).(#(#  " "  0   2  F  .3  0` (#(#  EscapeRule  1݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  Sexoffenses.Peoplev.Portillo(2003)107_Cal.App_.4th834.Underthe escaperule,the X  predicatefelonycontinuesforpurposesoffelonymurderliabilityuntiltheperpetratorhas D! reachedaplaceoftemporarysafety.Whiletheescaperulehasmostcommonlybeenapplied 0"  tohomicidesoccurringduringflightfromarobberyorburglary,Portilloconfirmsthatit #l! appliesequallytoflightfollowingrapeoroneoftheothersexualoffensesenumeratedin $X" Pen.Code189.$D #(#(#  " "  0   ҍ2  G  .3  0` (#(#  DefensestoPredicateFelony  ҍƉ݌&"%` (#` (# Ќ  0  Duress.󀀀Peoplev.Callahan(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th198.Althoughduressisnotadefense (#' totheoffenseofmurder(Peoplev.Anderson(2002)28Cal.4th767),duresscanprovidea )$( defensetoafelonymurdertheorybynegatingthepredicatefelony(asrecognizedin |*%) Anderson).Callahanupheldatrialcourtsordergrantinganewtrialonineffective h+&* assistancegrounds,basedontrialcounselsfailuretoofferexperttestimonysupporting  duressastothepredicatefeloniesofrobberyand_kidnapping_.(#(#  " "  0   {2  H  .3  0` (#(#  LesserIncludedOffenses  {݌t` (#` (# Ќ  ! !  (Ay90  Noinstructionsonlesserincludedoffenseofpredicatefelonywherefelonynotseparately L  charged:󀀀Peoplev.Combs(Dec.16,2004)__Cal.4th__,22_Cal.Rptr_.3d61,89[&prior 8  casescitedthere].Evenwhereprosecutionproceedsonrobberyfelonymurdertheory, $ t theresnorighttoinstructionsontheftaslesserincludedofrobbery(e.g.,per afterformed  ` intentrule),unlesstherobberyis#XX,V#XXԀchargedasaseparatecount. L (#(# " "  0   Һ2A3  0` (#(#  Note,however,that,undernumerousearlierSupremeCourtrulings,defenseisstill  8  entitleduponrequestto pinpointinstructionsonthe afterformedintentrule. $  See,e.g.,\XXXXPeoplev.Webster#XXX\X2#(1991)54Cal.3d411,443;Peoplev.Turner(1990)50   Cal.3d668,690691. Һ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  #XX\#XX0  Conspiracytocommitrobberyaslesseroffelonymurderundercircumstances?:Peoplev.   Nguyen(2003)4_Cal.Rptr_.3d211,_depublished_{formerly111_Cal.App_.4th184}.This p unusualcaseinvolvingahomicideduringabotchedrobberyplotpresentedanissueof \ whethersomeofthedefendantshadwithdrawnfromtherobberyconspiracypriortothe H homicide.Thecasewastriedsolelyonafelonymurdertheory,predicatedontherobbery 4 conspiracy.Underthosecircumstances,FirstDist.Div.3heldthatthedefendantswere  p entitledtorequestedinstructionsonconspiracytocommitrobberyasalesserincludedof  \ thechargedfelonymurder.(Ofcourse,theNguyenopinionis_uncitable_.Thoughtheissues H arentidentical,itshardtoreconcile_Nugyen_withsomeoftheSupremeCourtsholdings 4 definingthetestfornecessarilyincludedoffenses.)#XXT# (#(# .