WPC¿ -9VHT$UTɦRH]a'uo%k/INM>8NrZpRy2lҷ樠hK ;W6NDn:;gG1Ft9DksI`{ƽ˻` ÐU.kߐ|0,3;/n6WqA;K'uWߎPUU'k2ʳ)RO3o .j5t% hh7`CLa>I/!"eZȡ&/T[`~DBrD1gc>J LK.Ky~TCc=Sr )?Pa3%]2;W2,RrƺReGAv6潀fytI C/~)Uﰻ8xαlr؝L +Qzwlm)gMX}a# 8E-q@'oyeUN1 %1 01#[22$5 vV55 v^66 v78UN8b8 729 189 19 0F: 0:^ ;f;a; D;< m<2< 1<zM=w?4? 1? 1uf@ 0c@>A 0DZFF 0FNIG D+KGvG 0oN 0N 0|O 0-P 0R 1R 0S 0e`TfUaU 1U bV 1jV 0V 0W 0EX  Y 0Y 0Y Z 0Z [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [  \ 0\ 0\ 0] 0<^ 0^ 0_ 01` 0` 0a 0zb 0'c 0c 0od 0 e 0e 0,f 0f 0g 0lh 0i 0i 0Xj 0j 0k 1U lU;>alU*l 0l 0m 0>En 0n 0{o D5]p 0p 0tq 0Vr 08s 0t 0t 02u 0u 0:v 0Yw 0_gw 0 w 0x B*Rz 0|z D/| 0| D/~ 0~ 06 0 0: 0^, 0<U6ƁY9N,; * 0Nɑm3LL.l3 1&֮֮֮ 0e 0$ 0<LL J 2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2(  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(YGJ$  xXXhp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60A:\Template\PLEACOVE.WPTc:\COREL\SUITE8\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~2\FDAPCU~1\BRIEFC~1.WPTc:\Corel\Suite8\Template\Custom WP Templates\FDAP Custom\Brief Cover.wpt e:\COREL\SUITE8\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\FDAPCU~1\FIRSTP~1.WPTe:\Corel\Suite8\Template\Custom WP Templates\FDAP Custom Templates\first page of brief.wpt c:\COREL\SUITE8\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~2\FDAPCU~1\BRIEF-~1.WPTc:\Corel\Suite8\Template\Custom WP Templates\FDAP Custom Templates\brief-first page.wpt(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -i) *EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.a.1.1.1.1.1.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#((2$ GJ!  tXX     `   0  G2 Table_Cc:\Corel\FDAPWP~2\PETITI~2.WPTUc:\Corel\FDAP WP10 TEMPLATES\Petition For Review Cover and First Page.wpt EGMSY_ekqAutoList12a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.  " ' brad0brad .   Wd0e:i+00 5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   Sonoma SCV MCRPoshepny subdRaimaBallingerFrazersubdsPellegrino DixEspinozaZWERLINGKennardWerdegar opn AABMPanelliexpress[ed fnsuncodifiedYatesEvattposit[ingBalderasSeaton ReasuperaddingAntickNicholsSatchellsuperaddsestops T]heWitkinLachmannonstatutoryreconceiveSandstromManduley n]oT]hereTufungaMattison W]eLaskos]econdLedesmagotcha I]tforeseeably I]fColantuonoGaudinMullaneyMiddletonMcNeil S.CtApprendiBlakelyCALJICNederCal.Apppreclud[ingdispositiveRANDLECarella(#$  0  3|x(t2$ GJ!  tXX  M'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(t2$ GJ!  tXX  ($$   1  (t2$ GJ!  tXX  '*()&C<< c(EGMSY_ekqAutoList131.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(Vm$0   (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. d*+ (_2623  ..1(zEGMSY_ekqAutoList15A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(,!$0  0` (#(#  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` %\  `&Times New Roman0jj .Normal X   X  (T$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# 8(FT$L A ((AL  XMXXXXXM L A ((AL  XMXXXXXM <SS:Default ParaS7\  `&Times New RomanSS7\  `&Times New RomanS ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.>:RR p8block quote  X X X  X X X8<j,K:normal aft01 8 XXXXtXX X    X8   XXXXtXX  Table_C( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.2 .DEFHIhEGKOSW[_cAutoList16"""""""")1)a)(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#3($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#Attorney*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  BarNumberH45678910*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   $359=AEIMQ111111111\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<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  0000)!dxdx(]]&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 NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  &0 d d<:zBottom of 7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?o%2A`Arial?  Sn\  `&Times New RomanS7&(X75+ ` hp x 5  )1dxd<:zTop of For7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?o%2A`Arial?  Sn\  `&Times New RomanS7&(X75+ ` hp x 5  )2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New  $  $XX   `   19    _ԀAsthosejusticesnote,inthemajorityofhomicidesinvolving  reckless,highlydangerousconduct,prosecutorswillhavelittledifficulty  obtainingamurderconvictionbyprovingmaliceaforethought.Thosecases  whichpresentmoredifficultquestions,suchasmerelynegligentconductor  circumstancesofprovocationorimperfectselfdefense,arepreciselytheones  inwhichtheprosecutionshouldberequiredtosustainitsburdenofproving   maliceandthejurorsshouldbepermittedtoconsidergroundsfor   manslaughter.(Id.at176177(Moreno,J.,concur.opn.);id.at191192   (Brown,J.,dis.opn.).)  $  $XX   `   2    _ԀRandlewilladdressRobertsonsimplicationsforhisargumentsina  somewhatdifferentorderthaninhisoriginalAnswerBriefontheMerits  (AABM).Thisbriefwillbeginwiththedoctrinalquestionsabouttheviability  offelonymurderposedbythevariousopinionsinRobertsonandwillthen  proceedtothemorecasespecificissuesofapplicabilityoftherevived   collateralpurposemergerstandardtothisjurytrial. O $  $XX   `   15    _Ԁ 'Constructivecrimescrimesbuiltupbycourtswiththeaidof  inference,implication,andstrainedinterpretationarerepugnanttothespirit  andletterofEnglishandAmericancriminallaw.'[Citation.](Keelersupra,  2XX$Cal.3d#$XX#Ԁat632.)  $  $XX   `   14    _ԀAccordExparteHarder(1935)9_Cal.App_.2d153,155[ [_w]e_  cannothaverecoursetothecommonlawtodetermineprohibitedacts].) " $  $XX   `   7    _Ԁn$$WhiletheoriginalActof1850includedastatutecodifyingabroad  felonymurderrule#$n$#(25ofthatAct),applicabletoallfelonies,thatprovision   wasnotreenactedin1872whentheLegislatureadoptedthePenalCode   andhenceceasedtobethelaw.[Citation.](Dillon,supra,at467,emphasis  inoriginal.)Theonlyfelonymurderprovisionenactedinthe1872Codewas  section189'sestablishmentoffirstdegreefelonymurderforcertain   specificallyenumeratedpredicatefelonies,andthatnarrowlytailoredfirst   degreeprovisionremainsCaliforniasonlystatutoryfelonymurderrule.page page chapter volume footnote endnote mailto:jboc@fdap.org(O$ c $  $XX   `   8    _Ԁ1Witkin&Epstein,Cal.CriminalLaw(3rded.2000),CrimesAgainst  thePerson163,p.777,emphasisadded.  $  $XX   `   10    _ԀPreSandstromcaselawtookthepositionthatsuchpresumptions  wereconstitutionallypermissible,solongastherewas n$$sufficientrational  connectioninexperiencebetweenthepreliminaryfactprovedandtheultimate  factpresumed.(E.g.,Peoplev.Lachman(1972)23Cal.App.3d1094,1098.)#$n$c#  $  $XX   `   11    _Ԁn$$E.g.,#$n$#Peoplev.n$$Ԁ_Roder_(1983)33#$n$!#n$$Cal.3d#$n$#n$$Ԁ491[presumptionofsecond  handdealersknowledgeofstolencharacterofgoods,wherecircumstances  shouldhavepromptedhimtomakereasonableinquiry];_Carella_Ԁv.California  (1989)491U.S.263[presumptionofintenttostealortodefraudwhere  defendantfailstoreturnrentedcarwithinprescribedperiod];#$n$#n$$Peoplev.#$n$#n$$  _Milham_(1984)159#$n$##n$$_Cal.App_.3d487,502505[presumptionofintoxication   frombloodalcoholcontentof0.10%].#$n$#  $  $XX   `   3    _ԀJusticesBrown,Moreno,andWerdegarechoedmanyoftheconcerns  whichotherjusticesofthisCourthadraisedinthepast.AsJusticePanelli  wrotein1989, wehavetraveledveryclosetotheedgeofourroleasjudges  andhavecomeperilouslyclosetobecominglegislators.(Peoplev.Patterson  (1989)49Cal.3d615,641(Panelli,J.,concur.&dis.opn.).)Similarly,Chief  JusticeBirdundertookanextensivehistoricalsurveyofthefelonymurder   conceptanddeclared, Thetimehascomeforthiscourttodiscardtheartificial   andcourtcreatedoffenseofseconddegreefelonymurder.n$$(Burroughs,   supra,35#$n$#Cal.3dn$$Ԁat836(Bird,C.J.,concur.opn.).)#$n$B# ) $  $XX   `   5    _ԀThebriefinginRobertsonfocusedsolelyontheIrelandmerger  questionanddidnotaddresswhethertheseconddegreefelonymurder  doctrineoperatedasapresumptionoftheelementofmalice.(SeeAppellants  AnswerBriefinPeoplev.Robertson,S118034,pp.1023.) $ $  $XX   `   16    _ԀHeretoo,becauseQuincyRobertsondidnotraiseeitherofthese  legislativeintentarguments,thisCourthadnooccasiontoaddressthem.But  becauseDarryl_Randle_Ԁhassquarelyraisedtheseissues,thisCourtcannotavoid  decidingtheminthiscase. | $  $XX   `   18    _ԀTheSmithopinionalsocontainedsomeoftheCourtsstrongest  admonitionsthatseconddegreefelonymurderwasa highlyartificial,   disfavored, anachronistic[],andeven  barbaricconcept,which  should begiventhenarrowestpossibleapplication.(Smith,supra,at803.) b $  $XX   `   17    _ԀE.g.,Peoplev.Mendoza(2000)23Cal.4th897,905;Peoplev.  Ledesma(1997)16Cal.4th90,95(&casescitedthere). CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  $  $XX   `   6    _ԀE.g.: Insuchhomicidesthelawsuperaddstheintenttokilltothe  originalfeloniousintent,andestopsthecriminalfromdenyingthefurther  intentthusimputed.(Olsen,supra,80Cal.at127.) n$$[T]he#$n$#n$$malice#$n$#n$$Ԁnecessary  formurderisitself#$n$e#n$$presumed#$n$#n$$Ԁin#$n$(#n$$felony#$n$n#n$$Ԁmurderfromtheintenttocommitthe  #$n$#n$$felony#$n$2#....( n$$ Nichols,supra,3Cal.3dat #$n$#164,emphasisadded;accord n$$ Satchell,  supra,6Cal.3dat34fn.1#$n$#.)  $  $XX   `   12    _Ԁn$$Ԁ#$n$#n$$ԀE.g.,#$n$#n$$Peoplev.#$n$[#n$$ԀAgnew(1940)16Cal.2d655,663[adopting   commonlawpresumptionofunlawfulnessinunlawfulimprisonmentcases,  though notspecificallyenumeratedbystatute].#$n$#  $  $XX   `   1    _ԀStatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCode,unlessotherwiseindicated.A, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#Y2Quick A.  .0 <J:signaturepld  &8(0&XXX  &8(0&<V:2 Spacing Pl  2( p x(02XXX  2( p x(02  $  $XX   `   4    _ԀNoneofthecitedcasesdescribedseconddegreefelonymurderas  abolishingmaliceasanelement.Peoplev.Balderas(1985)41XX$Cal.3d#$XXr#Ԁ144,  197(whichRobertsonquotes),andPeoplev.Seaton(2001)26XX$Cal.4th#$XX#Ԁ598,  665,concernedfirstdegreefelonymurderasdefinedinsection189.The  othercitedcaseseitherindicatedthattheruleimputedor positedtheelement  ofmalice(Ireland,supra,70Cal.2dat538),failedtoexplainexactlyhowit   operated(e.g.,Peoplev.Ford(1964)60Cal.2d772,795),ordidnotdiscuss   felonymurderatall(InreChristianS.(1994)9XX$Cal.4th#$XXY#Ԁ768,773fn.1).  $  $XX   `   9    _ԀE.g.,UlsterCountyCourtv.Allen(1979)442U.S.140.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 @ $  $XX   `   13    _Ԁ Thepowersofthestategovernmentarelegislative,executiveand  judicial.Personschargedwiththeexerciseofonepowermaynotexercise  eitheroftheothersexceptaspermittedbythisConstitution.(Cal.Const.,art.  III,XX$#$XX#Ԁ3.)Document1zzSDUNumber36Document1zzSDUNumber73Document1zzSDUNumber75 GJ!  $XX  _ @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA   ` @** ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,*dt@,dd@+  :000'   C:  PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, 0  ̀PlaintiffandRespondent, , | ̀v. (x  % 2 DARRYLRANDLE%2, $t  ̀DefendantandAppellant.  p   z 6,!nC000 C6 z  S117370 . ~ CourtofAppeal * z No.% G A097168%G (x  (% O Alameda%OԀCounty $t  SuperiorCourt "r  No.% Q 137823%Q)  p   .(lC  ( .  APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF S ONPEOPLEv.ROBERTSON Q AfterDecisionbytheCourtofAppeal M FirstAppellateDistrict,Division% S One%S K  Filed% T May30,2003%T2 I!   Ӏ E#  `     h   MATTHEWZWERLING ?!&  `     h   ExecutiveDirector ="'  `     h   % J J.BRADLEYOCONNELL 9$)  $$ `     h   StaffAttorney#$ $# 7% *  C .DEFHI(x3Ӏ(StateBarNo.% L 104755) 5&!+ 0 `  FirstDistrictAppellateProject3'",` `  Ѐ730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 1(#- ЀSanFrancisco,CA94107 /)$. ЀTelephone:(415)4953119 -*}%/  `     h   Email:4 O  5  jboc@fdap.org6 O   7 H Ԁ ++{&0 Ѐ `     h    ),y'1  `     h   AttorneysforAppellant    '-w(2   8Xdd8    INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA   *r?@ dd*dt@*dd@  r,dt@,dd@+  :000' C:  PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, 0  ̀PlaintiffandRespondent, , | ̀v. ( x  % B DARRYLRANDLE%B~, $t  ̀DefendantandAppellant. 6,! p C000 C6  S117370 0  CourtofAppeal , | No.% N A097168%Ne * z (% P Alameda%PԀCounty &v  SuperiorCourt $t  No.% R 137823%R ) "r   .(n C  ( . `     h      p         APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF W ONPEOPLEv.ROBERTSON  Ԁ U       INTRODUCTION    S  ` % M DarrylRandlesubmitsthissupplementalbrieftoaddressthemany Q implicationswhichPeoplev.Robertson(2004)34Cal.4th156,posesforthe ! issuesofthiscase.RobertsonheldthattheIrelandmergerdoctrine(People Q! v.Ireland(1969)70Cal.2d522)didnotbarsubmissionofnegligentfirearm !# discharge(Pen.Code246.3) "#  1      ׀asapredicateforseconddegreefelonymurder Q%  underthefactsofthepresentcasebecause thedischargeofthefirearmwas  !' undertakenwithapurposecollateraltotheresultinghomicide.(Robertson, Q") supra,at171.) #!+  ` Robertsonwasa43decision.JusticeMorenowroteaseparate Q% - concurringopinion,andJusticesKennard,Brown,andWerdegareachwrote &!"/ separatedissents.Takentogether,themajorityopinionandthefourseparate Q(#1 opinionsposefundamentalquestionsaboutthecasebycaseapplicationofthe )!%3  mergerdoctrineand,mostsignificantly,abouttheconstitutionalityand  continuedlegitimacyofthatnonstatutoryseconddegreefelonymurder 0 doctrineitself.   ` Thosebroadissuesaboutthehistory,doctrinalbasis,andfutureof 0  seconddegreefelonymurderwerenotdecidedinRobertsonbecausethey   werefarbeyondanyissueraisedbytheparties.AsJusticeMorenonoted: 0   8 ` Thesubjectofmyconcurrence,thecontinuedviabilityofthe   seconddegreefelonymurderrule,wasneitherbriefednor   arguedinthiscourt,soIhavenotreachedafirmconclusionon   thisissue,butIwritetoexpressmyreservationsaboutthe   doctrineandintentiontoexamineitcloselywhentheissueis   clearlyraisedandbriefedinthiscourt.(Robertson,supra,34  Cal.4that177(Moreno,J.,concur.opn.);seealsoid.at184fn.  5(Kennard,J.,dis.opn.)[ theissuewasnotraisedinthe  partiesbriefsoratoralargument].)-` x` x  ` UnlikeRobertson,DarrylRandlehaschallengedtheseconddegree 0 felonymurderinstructionsonmultipleconstitutionalandpolicygrounds(in  additiontothe mergerbar).Boththemajorityopinions_reformulations_Ԁof 0 themergerstandardandindeedofthenatureoffelonymurderitselfandthe  concurringanddissentingopinionscritiquesofthatdoctrinebeardirectlyon 0 Randlesarguments.WhiletheRobertsonopinionsplacedtheseimportant   questionsonthetableandbeganadiscussionabouttheviabilityofthis 0 " unusual nonstatutorygroundformurder,Robertsonitselfwasnotasuitable !$ caseforresolutionofthoseissues.Randleis. "#  2       0#&    I.0 ` ASSUGGESTEDINTHECONCURRINGANDDISSENTING  OPINIONSINROBERTSON,THISCOURTSHOULD  REPUDIATETHESECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDER  THEORY.THISNONSTATUTORY THEORYNECESSARILY  REPRESENTSEITHERANUNCONSTITUTIONAL  PRESUMPTIONOFMALICEAFORETHOUGHT,IN   VIOLATIONOFSANDSTROMANDYATES,ORAJUDICIAL   ABROGATIONOFTHESTATUTORYELEMENTOF   MALICE,INVIOLATIONOFPENALSECTION6,   SEPARATIONOFPOWERS,ANDDUEPROCESS  Z!.   ` `  H! `  A.0 TheRobertsonConcurringandDissentingOpinions   CritiquesoftheLegitimacyofSecondDegreeFelony   Murder  _$. >$    ` ThevariousopinionsinRobertson!themajorityopinionaswellasthe !q concurrenceandthedissents!havereopenedadiscussionwhichanimated  manyofthisCourtsopinionsonfelonymurderfromthe1960'sthroughthe !q 1980's.ThisCourtoftenexpresseditsreservationsaboutthelegitimacyand  wisdomoftheseconddegreefelonymurderruleandendeavoredtogiveit ... !q thenarrowestpossibleapplication(Peoplev.Smith(1984)35Cal.3d798,  803),lestthis creatureofjudicialinvention(Peoplev.Burroughs(1984)35 !q Cal.3d824,829fn.3) withoutanyexpressbasisinthePenalCode(People  v.Dillon(1983)34Cal.3d441,472fn.19)displacethelegislativelyenacted !q elementofmaliceaforethought.The mergerdoctrineofPeoplev.Ireland  ! (1969)70Cal.2d522,539540,anditsprogenywasbutonefrontinthis !"q# Courtsefforttoreininthis disfavoreddoctrine(Smith,supra,at803).n$$ #%  ` Withthenoteworthyexceptionof#$n$B*#Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th !%q ' 300,theCourthadlittleoccasiontograpplewithseconddegreefelonymurder &!) overthepastdecade.ButthethoughtfulopinionsinRobertsonhaveraised !(q#+ fundamentalquestionsaboutthelegitimacyofthedoctrine.JusticeBrown,in )$- particular,hasreviewedthemanyshiftsintheCourtsformulationsofthe !+q&/ standardsgoverningthedoctrine,aswellastheanomaliestherulecontinues  toproduceinsubjectinglessculpableconduct,whichismerelynegligent,to 0 greatercriminalliabilitythanwilfulassaults.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that  186192(Brown,J.,dis.opn.)).JusticesBrownandWerdegarbothurged 0  thisCourttoabandonthedoctrineoutofrespectfortheconstitutional   prerogativeoftheLegislaturetoestablishtheelementsofcrimes.(Id.at189 0   192(Brown,J.,dis.opn.);id.at185187(Werdegar,J.,dis.opn.).)Justice   Morenoexpressedsimilarconcernsabout thecontinuedviabilityofthe 0  seconddegreefelonymurderruleand(whilecautioningthathehas not   reachedafirmconclusion)declaredhis intentiontoexamineitcloselywhen 0  theissueisclearlyraisedandbriefedinthisCourt.(Id.at177(Moreno,J.,  concur.opn.).) "#  3      ׀Finally,JusticeKennardtooknoteofhercolleaguescalls to 0 reconsiderthevalidityofthedoctrine,but express[ed]noviewonthisissue  inviewofher conclusionthat[Robertsons]convictionshouldbereversed 0 inanyeventandbecausetheissuewasnotraisedinthepartiesbriefs.(Id.  at184fn.5(Kennard,J.,dis.opn.).) 0  ` RandlesargumentsprovidethisCourtwiththeopportunitytoaddress   thesebroaderconcernsaboutthelegitimacyofthisdoctrine!mostnotably, 0" hehasarguedthatthefelonymurdertheoryoperatesasanunconstitutional $ presumptionofmalice(AABMPartIV)andthatanyconceptionofthe 0!& doctrineaseliminatingmalicewouldoffendseparationofpowersprinciples,  ascodifiedinsection6(seeAABM5758&fns.34,35).Liketheconcerns 0 raisedbyJusticesBrown,WerdegarandMoreno,Randlesargumentsflow  fromthenonstatutorycharacterofseconddegreefelonymurder.Under 0  contemporaryconstitutionalprinciples,itisimpossibletoreconcilethe   continueduseofanuncodifieddoctrineto eliminate[]theneedforproofof 0   malice(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that165)withtheLegislaturesstatutes   establishingmaliceaforethoughtasanelementofallformsofmurder(187, 0  188)exceptfirstdegreefelonymurder(189;Peoplev.Dillon,supra,34   Cal.3dat471475). 0   0 `  B.0 ` ` RobertsonRepresentsanApparentShiftinthisCourts  ConceptionofSecondDegreeFelonyMurderfromthe  HistoricModelof Imputing, Positing,or Presuming  theElementofMalice(asReiteratedinHansen)toOneof  EliminatingthatStatutoryElement  8.y8    ` AsthisCourthasdoneinthepast,theRobertsonmajorityopinion %u acknowledgesthat,unlikesection189'scodificationoffirstdegreefelony  murder,thereisnostatutorybasisforseconddegreefelonymurder:It isa %u commonlawdoctrine.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that166.)Butthat   characterizationbegsthequestionofhowexactlytheruleoperates.In %u" particular,whatistherelationshipofthisjudiciallycreateddoctrinetothe  $ statutoryelementofmaliceaforethought,whichsection187(a)definesasan %"u& essentialrequirementformurder?(Seealso188,definingmalice.) #(  ` Therearetwopossiblemodelsforconceivingtherelationshipbetween %%u * felonymurderandmalice.Thefirstmodelacknowledgesthatmaliceisan &!, elementofallformsofseconddegreemurderXX$(#$XX>#Ԁ187),andviewsfelony %(u#. murderasadevicefor positingor imputingmaliceandexcusingthe )$0 necessityforpresentationofevidenceofthatmentalstate.Becausenostatute %+u&2 haseliminatedmaliceasanelementorotherwisecodifiedanoffenseof  seconddegreefelonymurderandthisCourthasnoauthoritytodeletea 0 statutoryelementofacrimeXX$(#$XX@#Ԁ6),Randlehascontendedthatthejudicially  createdseconddegreerulerepresentsanunconstitutionalpresumptionofthat 0  element,underYatesv.Evatt(1991)500U.S.391,andSandstromv.Montana   (1979)442U.S.510.(AABM5359) 0    ` Thealternativemodel,urgedbyrespondent,conceivesoffelonymurder   aseliminatingtheelementofmaliceaforethought.Ofcourse,thatishowfirst 0  degreefelonymurderoperates.Inenactingsection189,whichenumerates   specificpredicatefelonies,theLegislatureestablishedaformoffirstdegree 0  murderwhichdoesnotincludeanyelementofmalice.(Dillon,supra,34  Cal.3dat472476.)NotwithstandingDillonsemphaticlimitationofits 0 reasoningtothefirstdegreerulecodifiedinsection189(id.at472fn.19),  respondenthasinsisted, theseconddegreefelonymurderruleoperateslike 0 itsfirstdegreecounterparttoeliminatetheelementofmaliceformurders  whichoccurduringthecommissionofinherentlydangerousfelonies.(Ct 0 AppealRB36,emphasisadded)    ` AtleastuntilRobertson,thisCourtsexplanationsofthedoctrine 0" consistentlymatchedtheformerofthesemodels!i.e,positingorimputation $ ofmalice,noteliminationofmaliceasarequiredelement.(SeePartIC, 0!& infra.)Asthemostrecentcaseonthebooksatthetimeofthishomicide, "( Peoplev.Hansen,supra,9XX$Cal.4th#$XXH#Ԁ300,isespeciallysignificant.Asdiscussed 0$* inpreviousbriefing,Hansensexplanationofseconddegreefelonymurder %!, leavesnodoubtthattheelementofmaliceremainsintegraltothatdoctrine: 0'". Maliceremainsa requisite,andtheruleservesanevidentiaryfunctionby ($0  imputingor posit[ing]theexistenceofthatcrucialmentalstate,thereby 0*%2 excusingtheneedforpresentationoffurtherevidence.(Hansen,supra,at +'4 308;seeAABM58forcompletequotation.)   ` TheRobertsonmajorityopinionappearstoendorseaverydifferent 0 conceptofthedoctrine.Almostasanaside,Robertsongoesfurtherthanany  previousopinionandportraystheruleasabrogating,ratherthanimputing,the 0  elementofmalice. Becausemalicehasbeeneliminatedasanelement,   circumstancesthatmayservetoreducethecrimefrommurderto 0   manslaughter,suchasprovocationorimperfectself-defense,arenotrelevant   inthecaseofafelonymurder.[Citations.](Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.3d#$XXM#Ԁat 0  165.) "#  4      ׀Sincetheprecisestatusofmaliceintheseconddegreefelonymurder   equationwasnotatissueinRobertson,  "#  5      ׀itisnotclearwhetherthemajority 0  actuallyintended(withoutthebenefitofbriefing)toalterCalifornias  longstandingformulationoftheruleorwhetheritemployedthe eliminated 0 asanelementphrasesimplyasashorthandforthemorecumbersome  traditionaldefinitionof positingor imputingmalice.Becausecasesare 0 notauthorityonissuesnotsquarelypresented,thispassingstatementshould  notberegardedasthefinalwordonwhethermaliceremainsanelement. 0  ` RandlecontendsthatHansensexplanationofseconddegreefelony   murderasawayof positingor imputingmaliceismorefaithfultothe  CourtshistoricunderstandingoftheconceptthanthesuggestioninRobertson 0 thattheruleeliminatesmaliceasanelement.Moreimportantly,however,   undereithermodelofseconddegreefelonymurder,thedoctrineis 0  unconstitutional,thoughfordifferentreasons. Theformermodel(imputing   malice)representsanunconstitutionalpresumptiondilutingtheprosecutions 3   burdenofproof(PartIC,infra),whilethelatterconcept(eliminationofa    statutoryelement)posesajudicialusurpationoftheLegislaturesexclusive 3  authoritytoestablishtheelementsofcrimes(PartID).   0 `  C.0 ` ` IfSecondDegreeFelonyMurder PositsorImputesthe 3   RequisiteElementofMalice,asIndicatedInHansenand 1 PreviousDecisions,ItViolatesDueProcessbyPresuming / theMensReaElementfromthePredicateFactofUnlawful -} WeaponUse,inViolationofSandstromandYates U. U+{   ` FromthisCourtsearliestcasesfollowingtheenactmentofthePenal  Codeof1872,throughpreSandstromopinionsofthe1970's,theCourt (x repeatedlydescribedthefelonymurderdoctrineasamechanismfor   imputing, superadding(Peoplev.Olsen(1889)80Cal.122,126127), (x  inferring(n$$Peoplev.Brown(1958)49Cal.2d577,591#$n$IY#fn.3), ascribing   (n$$Peoplev.Washington(1965)62Cal.2d777,780#$n$Y#;Peoplev.Antick(1975)15 (x" Cal.3d79,87),or presuming(n$$Peoplev.Nichols(1970)3Cal.3d150,#$n$Z#Ԁ164;  $ Peoplev.n$$Satchell(1971)6Cal.3d28,34fn.1#$n$T[#)themaliceaforethought ("x& necessaryforamurderconviction.n$$ "#  6      #$n$\# #(  ` Randlerecognizesthat,inDillon,thisCourtfoundthatsimilarrecitals   thatmaliceispresumed(oracognatephrase)didnotaccuratelydescribe 0 thefirstdegreefelonymurderrule.(Dillon,supra,34Cal.3dat473&fn.20.)  ButthelynchpinofDillonwastheCourtsholdingthatfirstdegreefelony 0  murderwasstatutory(189),whiletheseconddegreeversionwasnot.   Section189establishedaformoffirstdegreemurder,whichdoesnotinclude 0   anyelementofmaliceaforethought.Asitwas,Dillonacknowledgedthatits   statutoryconstructionofthelegislativeintentunderlyingsection189wasa 0  tenuousanddebatableone.n$$(Id.at472.)TheCourtadmonished#$n$`#thatits   reasoningwouldnotcarryovertoseconddegreefelonymurder: n$$Although 0  themisdemeanormanslaughterruleisplainlyacreatureofstatute(Pen.Code,  #$n$`#n$$#$n$a#n$$192,par.2),wereachthesameconclusionastothefirstdegreefelony 0 murderruleonlybypilinginferenceoninference;andtheseconddegree  felonymurderruleremains,asithasbeensince1872,ajudgemadedoctrine 0 withoutanyexpressbasisinthePenalCode[citation]#$n$a#n$$.(Id.at472fn.19.) "#  7      #$n$c#   ` Section187requiresmaliceasanelementofmurder.Therecognition 0 that, likeallmurder(exceptfirstdegreefelonymurder[citation]),[second   degreemurder]doesrequiremaliceaforethought[citations]  "#  8      ׀underliesthe 0" Courtsholdingsthatmaliceisa requisiteor crucialmentalstatefora $ murderconviction,evenundertheseconddegreefelonymurderrule.  (Hansen,supra,9Cal.4that308.) 0  ` Becausemaliceremainsanelementofseconddegreemurder,itfollows  thatthefelonymurderdoctrineoperatesexactlyasdescribedinHansenand 0  previouscases!it posits, imputes,or presumesthisnecessarymental   state.Thus,thepresumptive posit/ imputelanguageoftheCourts 0   opinionsdoesdefinehowthenonstatutoryseconddegreefelonymurderrule   works,eventhoughthatisnotacorrectdescriptionofthedistinctstatutory 0  offenseoffirstdegreefelonymurder(Dillon,supra,34Cal.3dat473).   Becausetherehasbeennostatutoryeliminationofmalice,theseconddegree 0  doctrinenecessarilyoperatesasanevidentiarydevice,itpresumesthemalice  necessaryformurderfromtheintenttocommitaninherentlydangerous 0 felony.(Seen$$Nichols,supra,3Cal.3dat#$n$k#164;Olsen,supra,80Cal.at126  127.) 0  ` Therearecompellinghistoricalreasonsfortakingthoseprevious  statementsattheirword.Inviewofthelegallandscapeasitappearedinthe 0 19thandearly20thcenturies,itismorereasonabletobelievethattheCourtwas   simplyfashioningapresumptionorcomparableevidentiarydevice,ratherthan 0" eliminatingthemaliceasanelement.ThisCourtwouldneverhavearrogated $ toitselfthepowertowriteanelementoutofastatute.Anysuchuseofa 0!&  commonlawdoctrinetoremovethestatutorymaliceelementofmurder "( wouldhavebeenrecognizedasapatentinvasionoftheLegislaturesexclusive 0$* constitutionalprerogativetoestablishanddefinetheelementsofcrimes.(Cal. %!, Const.,art.III,3;Pen.Code6;seePartID,infra.) 0'".  ` ThisCourtshistoricrespectforseparationofpowerswouldhave ($0 deterreditfromcreating,byjudicialfiat,aformofseconddegreemurderwith 0*%2 nomaliceelement.However,thesamecannotbesaidforjudicial +'4 developmentofapresumptionorimputationofmalicefromcommissionofa  felony.AtthetimetheCourtfashionedtheseconddegreefelonymurderrule, 0 therewasnorecognizedconstitutionalorstatutorybartojudicialdevelopment  ofsuchanevidentiarypresumptionorinference. 0   ` UntilSandstromv.Montana(1979)442U.S.510,andotheropinions   ofthe1970's, "#  9      ׀presumptionsorinferenceswhichaffectedtheburdenofproof 0   wereacommonfeatureofcriminalcases. "#  10      ׀Indeed,severallongstanding   CaliforniapresumptionswerelaterfoundtoviolateSandstromprinciples.X "#  11      ׀ 0  ButthosedevelopmentsoccurredlongafterthisCourtsopinionsestablishing   theseconddegreefelonymurderruleanddescribingitasformofpresumption 0  orimputation.   ` Norwouldtherehavebeenanyapparentstatelawimpedimentto 0 judicialdevelopmentofanonstatutorypresumptionorinferenceofmalice.  Incontrasttospecificationoftheelementsofcrimes!whichwasandis 0 committedsolelytotheLegislatureXX$(#$XXw#Ԁ6)!thecourtshavelonghadthe  authoritytofashioncommonlawevidentiaryn$$Ԁrules,includingpresumptions. 0 PriortotheadoptionoftheEvidenceCodein1965,muchofCalifornia   evidencelawwasuncodifiedanddevelopedthroughjudicialopinions.(1  Witkin,Cal.Evidence(4thed.2000),Introduction#$n$w#n$$Ԁ1114,pp.1824.)Both 0 beforeandaftertheadoptionofthatCode,Californiacourtshavehadthe  authorityto createnonstatutorypresumptionsandinferences(id., 0  Introduction#$n$!y#n$$Ԁ14,p.24;id.,BurdenofProof&Presumptions,#$n$fz#n$$Ԁ103,111   113,pp.235,246249),andthisCourtdidsoincriminalaswellascivil 0   contexts,oftenlookingtocommonlaw. "#  12      #$n$z#n$$    ` ItismorereasonabletoviewthisCourtsseconddegreefelonymurder 0  casesasapplicationsofanevidentiarypresumptionorinferenceofmalice,   rootedincommonlawprinciples#$n$"|#,ratherthanasexercisesinjudiciallegislation 0  oftheelementsofcrimes.Surely,thatinterpretationfindsgreatersupportin  theopinionsthemselves.Unfortunately,aswithmanyotherpresumptions 0 whichhadbecomeembeddedinCalifornialaw,thisdevicecannotsurvive  scrutinyundercontemporary(i.e.,postSandstrom)dueprocessprinciples. 0 SincethefelonymurdertheoryhereallowedthejurorstoconvictRandleof  murderbasedsolelyuponhisunlawfuluseofadeadlyweapon(246.3), 0 withoutanyfurtherinquiryintohissubjectivementalstate,thoseinstructions   representedanunlawfulpresumptionofmalicefromweaponuseinviolation 0" ofYatesv.Evatt(1991)500U.S.391.(SeeAABM5359) $ 0 `  D.0 ` ` Alternatively,IftheSecondDegreeFelonyMurderTheory 0!& DoesEliminateMaliceasanElement(AsSuggestedin ."~' Robertson),ThenItViolatesSeparationofPowers,Due ,#|( Process,andPenalCodeSection6,asaJudicialCreationof *$z) aNonStatutoryCrime +. (%x *    ` Contrarytotheimputationorpresumptionlanguageofpreviouscases, &'v", theRobertsonmajorityopinionappearstotakethedoctrineinadifferent  directionbypassinglydescribingitaseliminatingtheelementofmalice. 0 (Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.4th#$XX;#Ԁat165.)If(contrarytoPartIC)theCourtwere  toreconceiveorrepositionseconddegreefelonymurderasadistinctformof 0  murderwithnomaliceelement,itmightwellsidesteptheSandstromYates   presumptionproblemsposedbythe positor imputemodel. Butthat 0   conceptionofthedoctrinewouldsimplytradeoneconstitutionalinfirmity    foranother,foritwouldviolateseparationofpowersprinciples,aswell 3  assection6. AsRandlehasconsistentlyargued(AABM5759&fns.34,35),   thejudiciarycannotemployanonstatutory commonlawdoctrineofitsown 6  creationtodeleteorsupplantastatutoryelementofanoffense.   ` UndertheCaliforniaConstitution, "#  13      ׀ ...thepowertodefinecrimesand 6 fixpenaltiesisvestedexclusivelyinthelegislativebranch.'[Citations.]"  (n$$Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)#$n$ #n$$Ԁ(1996)13Cal.4th497,516#$n$p#n$$;Manduleyv. 6 SuperiorCourt(2002)27Cal.4th537,552;accord#$n$͉#Peoplev.Mikhail(1993)  13Cal.App.4th846,854.n$$)PenalCodesection6reinforcesthatconstitutional 6 command,#$n$#Ԁprovidingthat [n]oactoromission...iscriminalorpunishable,   exceptasauthorizedbythisCode. 6"  ` Farfromconferlegitimacy,theRobertsonmajoritysdescriptionofthe $ nonstatutoryseconddegreefelonymurderruleas acommonlawdoctrine 6!& (Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that166),placesitindirectviolationofthese "( constitutionalandstatutorystrictures. n$$[T]herearenocommonlawcrimesin 6$* California.[Citations.]#$n$R#'Inthisstatethecommonlawisofnoeffectsofaras %!, thespecificationofwhatactsorconductshallconstituteacrimeisconcerned  ....[Citation.](Keelerv.SuperiorCourt(1970)2Cal.3d619,631632.) "#  14      ׀ 0 Judicialeliminationofastatutorilyprescribedelementistantamountto  judicialrecognitionofacommonlawoffenseorjudicialprescriptionof 0  punishmentgreaterthanauthorizedbytheLegislature.n$$(InreBrown(1973)   9Cal.3d612,624;#$n$L#Peoplev.n$$ԀTufunga(1999)21#$n$ې#n$$Cal.4th935,939.)#$n$3# 0    ` Seconddegreefelonymurderisa constructivecrimewhich   embodiesalltheevilscondemnedinKeelerandothercases. "#  15      ׀Evenfirst 0  degreefelonymurderrestson inference,implication,andstrained   interpretation(cf.Keeler,supra,at632),butatleastithasastatutorybasis. 0  (Dillon,supra,34Cal.3dat472fn.19.)Seconddegreefelonymurderisan  evenmoreprecariouspileofinferencesandrestsonnothingbutcommonlaw; 0 itisnottetheredtoanystatute.Ifthedoctrineisunderstoodaseliminating  (ratherthanjustimputing)theelementofmalice,itdirectlycontravenes 0 section187.ThesearethesameobjectionsraisedbyJusticeBrown:  8 ` ThereshouldnotbeanynonstatutorycrimesinCalifornia.(Pen. 0 Code6.)Certainlythereshouldbenonethatthwartspecific 0 legislativeauthorizations.Itisnotenoughtocongratulate 0  ourselvesthat% d theLegislaturehasallowedustodosowith 0! impunity.ItwouldberemarkableiftheLegislatureunderstood 0" theimplicationsofadoctrineweourselvescannotsatisfactorily 0 # explain.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that191(Brown,J.,dis. 0!$ opn.);seealsoid.at185186(Werdegar,J.,dis.opn.);id.at 0"% 175176(Moreno,J.,concur.opn.)[callingthedoctrine deeply 0#& flawed].)` x` x t ` Notonlyisseconddegreefelonymurderajudicialinvention,itisan  everchangingone. Itrequiresthecourttodeterminebothhowthepredicate 0 felonyistobedefinedandwhatthresholdofdangerousnessissufficient.   (Robertson,supra,at186(Brown,J.,dis.opn.).)Unlikethestatutoryfirst 0  degreefelonymurderrule,whichenumeratesadiscretelistofpredicate    feloniesXX$(#$XX#Ԁ189),thescopeoftheseconddegreedoctrineisfraughtwith 0  uncertainty becausereasonablejudgescandisagreeaboutthelegitimacyof   contractingorexpandingthestatutorydefinitionofafelonyinorderto 0  concludethataparticularviolationshouldbedeemedinherentlydangerous.  [Citation.](Ibid.)TheCourtsattemptstoreinintheruleviathemerger 0 doctrinehaveintroducedanadditionallayerofuncertaintybecausealmost  everysuccessiveopinionhasmodifiedthegoverningtest.TheCourtadopted 0 an independentfeloniousintenttestinPeoplev.Mattison(1971)4XX$Cal.3d#$XX6#  177,185,repudiateditinHansen,supra,9XX$Cal.4th#$XXŞ#Ԁat315,andhasnow 0 resurrecteditinRobertson.(Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.4th#$XX}#Ԁat171(maj.opn.).)   [W]earechangingtherulesyetagain.(Id.at186(Brown,J.,dis.opn.); 0  accordid.at180(Kennard,J.,dis.opn.);id.at185(Werdegar,dis.opn.).) "  ` AsdiscussedinPartIV,infra,thesuccessivejudicialalterationsofthe 0 $ scopeofseconddegreefelonymurder(suchasRobertsonsrevivalofthe !&  independentfeloniouspurposetest)posedueprocessretroactivityproblems, 0#( aswell.Becauseitdoesnotrestonanystatutorytextandthejudicially $ * declaredstandards,suchastheyare,aresoamorphousandsubjecttochange 0&!, (seeRobertson,supra,at186188(Brown,J.,dis.opn.)),thedoctrinedoesnot '#. imparttherequisitecertaintyastowhichspecificfeloniesmaylaterbe 0)$0 declaredsufficientlydangeroustotriggertherule(orwhichonesmaybe *&2 declaredexemptfromthemergerprohibition).   ` ThisCourtshouldnotbeinthebusinessofdefiningcrimesornon 0 statutorytheoriesofcriminalliability.Andtheveryexerciseofattemptingto  definethescopeofseconddegreefelonymurderhasrequiredtheCourtto 0  revisitthesubjectagainandagainoverthedecadesinwhatisessentiallya   legislativetaskofadoptingandthenrevisingthesubstantivedefinitionofan 0   offense.Assumingthatseconddegreefelonymurderisaformofmurder   requiringnoelementofmalice(asrespondenthascontended),thenitisa 0  lawlessone,foritwaspromulgatedbythewrongbranchofgovernment.    `  E.0 Conclusion U. 0    ` ThisCourthasnotbeenafraidtoreexaminethevalidityofitsown  longstandingassumptionsaboutimportanttenetsofhomicidelaw.Itdidso -} fouryearsinPeoplev.Lasko(2000)7$$23#$7$#7$$Cal.4th#$7$#Ԁ101,110,whenitheld  (contrarytonumerousprioropinions)thatintenttokillisnotanelementof -} voluntarymanslaughter. [T]hefoundationsofandneed....foranonstatutory  seconddegreefelonymurderruleare ripeforasimilar reexamination. -} (Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.4th#$XX#Ԁat185(Werdegar,J.,dis.opn.).    ` Regardlessofhowthedoctrineisconceived,itisconstitutionally -}" infirm.Ifit positsor imputestheelementofmalice,itisan $ unconstitutionalpresumption.Ifiteliminatesmaliceasanelement,itisa -!}& judiciallycreatedcommonlawcrime,contrarytotheseparationofpowers "( doctrine.IfCaliforniaistohaveanoffenseofseconddegreefelonymurder, -$}* itisuptotheLegislature,notthisCourt,toestablishanddefinethatoffense.  % ,   II. 0 ` THESECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDERTHEORY  CONTRAVENESLEGISLATIVEINTENT . ` `   ` EvenifthisCourtdoesnotbelievethatseparationofpowersordue  processprinciplescompelitsrepudiation,theCourtshouldstillabandonthe , | seconddegreefelonymurderruleinlightofthepolicyandjurisprudential   considerationsdiscussedintheconcurringanddissentingopinionsin , |  Robertson.Because [s]econddegreefelonymurderdoesnothavethesame    statutorybasisasfirstdegreefelonymurder,it maybeabrogatedbythis ,|  court[citations],evenwithoutafindingthatitisunconstitutional.   (Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.4th#$XX9#Ԁat175(Moreno,J.,concur.opn.).)Those ,|  concernshaveparticularapplicationtotwospecificlegislativeintent  challengesRandlehasraisedtoextensionofthefelonymurderdoctrineto ,| section246.3:contraventionoftheLegislaturesexpectationsatthetimeof  itsenactmentofsection246.3in1988(AABMPartIIF),andtheimpropriety ,| ofuseofanonstatutoryjudiciallycreatedtheorytosupplanttheLegislatures  statutoryrule(XX$#$XX#Ԁ192(a))thatahomicide uponasuddenquarrelorheatof ,| passionisvoluntarymanslaughter(AABMPartV). "#  16         `  A.0 TheLegislatureHadNoExpectationorIntenttoAuthorize ,|! aNewBasis forFelonyMurderLiabilityWhenItEnacted *z" Section246.3 . . ~#   ` AsthisCourthassaidinnumerouscontexts,itsparamountdutyisto 2"% ascertainandgiveeffecttotheintentoftheLegislature. "#  17      ׀Thequestionthen #' is!orshouldbe!whethertheLegislatureintendedtoradicallyalterhomicide  lawwhenitenactedthisnewfelonyin1988.Itcannotseriouslybearguedthat 0 theLegislaturegaveanythoughttothepossibilityofitsuseasafelonymurder  predicatewhenitestablishedthisnewwobbler.Instead,thecaseforinclusion 0  ofsection246.3withinseconddegreefelonymurderultimatelycomesdown   toatheoryof legislationbyaccident!thatis,thatLegislatureshouldhave 0   anticipatedthatthenewoffensewouldbesweptupwithinthisdoctrine.Yet,   therearetwopatentproblemswiththatlineofreasoning. 0   ` First,althoughthissurelyhasneverbeentheCourtsintention,the   seconddegreefelonymurderdoctrinehascreateda gotchatrapforthe 0  Legislature.EvenwheretheLegislaturenevermadeanyaffirmativeconscious  decisiontoextendfelonymurderliabilitytoaparticularoffense(aswithXX$#$XXٻ# 0 246.3),thecourtsmaydosoanywayonthetheorythatitfollowsinexorably  fromthecreationofanyoffensewhichislaterdeemedtobeinherently 0 dangerous.Notonlydoesthisviewattachunintendedconsequencesto  legislativeenactmentsandunderminecomitybetweentheLegislatureandthe 0 judiciary,ithamstringstheLegislaturesabilitytocraftnewoffenses.When   theLegislatureperceivesthatcertainconductposessufficientriskstothe 0" publictowarrantcriminalpenalties(inthiscase,eitheracountyjailtermor $ aprisonsentenceofuptothreeyears),itshouldbeabletoenactsuchpenalties 0!& withoutfearthatthecourtswillsubsequentlyuptheanteandtransformthe "( offenseintoanewformofmurder,exemptfromthestatutorilyprescribed 0$* requirementofmalice. %!,  ` Second,anysuggestionthattheLegislatureimplicitlyauthorized 0'". felonymurderforsection246.3collapsesaltogetherinviewoftheever ($0 changingcharacterofthisCourtsfelonymurderstandards,asrecountedin 0*%2 theRobertsondissents.ItisunfairforthisCourttoextendseconddegree +'4 felonymurdertoanoffenseonthebasisofstandardsotherthanthoseextant  atthetimeoftheLegislaturesenactmentofthatfelony.Section246.3was 0 enactedduringaperiodwhich,inretrospect,appearstohavebeenthehigh  watermarkofthisCourtsviewofthemergerdoctrine.Themostrecent 0  opinionthenonthebookswasPeoplev.Smith(1984)35Cal.3d798,which   appliedthemergerprohibition,outsideitsoriginalcontextoffelonyassaults 0   XX$(#$XX #Ԁ245),tobarfelonymurderliabilityforchildabuseXX$(#$XX#Ԁ273a).Asnoted   earlier(AABM45),Smithalsoapprovedanappellateopinionwhichhad 0  appliedthemergerbartodischargingafirearmataninhabitedbuildingXX$(#$XX#   246).n$$(Id.at805,citing#$n$#n$$Peoplev.Wesley#$n$_#Ԁ(1970)10Cal.App.3d902,907.) "#  18       0   ` TheextantcaselawdidnotgivetheLegislaturefairnoticethata  firearmdischargeoffensesuchasnewsection246.3wouldbesubjecttothe 0  disfavoredfelonymurderdoctrine.Itisunreasonabletoemploythe  substantiallyrevisedstandardsof2004,tosaythattheLegislatureimplicitly 0 authorizedfelonymurderliabilitywhenitenactedsection246.3in1988.  0 `  B.0 ` ` ApplicationoftheJudiciallyCreatedSecondDegreeFelony 0 MurderRuletoSection246.3ContravenestheLegislatures .~ Specification,inSection192,ThatHomicidesintheHeatof ,|  Passion,IncludingShootingDeaths,AreVoluntary *z! Manslaughter imH. (x"  ' ` ThoughRobertsondidnotraisetheissueandthemajoritydidnot &!v$ discussit,JusticesKennard,Brown,andWerdegarcriticizedtheuseofanon "& statutorydoctrinetooverridetheLegislaturesstatutorycommandfixing &$v( killingsintheheatofpassionasvoluntarymanslaughterXX$(#$XXc#Ԁ192(a)).The % * inclusionofsection246.3bringsthenonstatutoryfelonymurderdoctrineinto  conflictwithsection192(a)inawaywhichnoneofthisCourtspriorcases 0 did,becauseoffensespreviouslydeclaredfelonymurderpredicates(e.g.  manufacturingmethamphetamine,kidnaping)donotpresentissuesofheatof 0  passion(oritscounterpart,imperfectselfdefense).Buthistoryshowsthat   heatofpassionhomicidescommonlyinvolveshootingswhichwouldcome 0   withinsection246.3.(SeeAABM62) Byholdingthattheseconddegree   felony-murderruleappliestoviolationsofsection246.3,themajority 0  underminestheLegislature'sdeterminationthathomicidescommittedinthe   heatofpassionorinunreasonableself-defensearenotmurderbutvoluntary 0  manslaughter.(Robertson,supra,34XX$Cal.4th#$XX#Ԁat182fn.4(Kennard,J.,dis.  opn.),emphasisadded.) 0  ` Theputativedistinctionbetweenassaultwithafirearm(which,under  themajorityopinion,isstillsubjecttotheIrelandmergerprohibition)and 0 recklessfiringonlyaccentuatestheproblembyturningtheculpabilitycalculus  onitshead. [I]tsimplycannotbethelawthatadefendantwhoshotthe 0 victimwiththeintenttokillorinjure,butcanshowheorsheactedin   unreasonableselfdefense,maybeconvictedonlyofvoluntarymanslaughter, 0" whereasadefendantwhoshotonlytoscarethevictimisprecludedfrom $ raisingthatdefenseandisstrictlyliableasamurderer.(Robertson,supra,34 0!& XX$Cal.4th#$XX#Ԁat185(Werdegar,J.,dis.opn.);accordid.at181(Kennard,J.,dis. "( opn.);id.at176(Moreno,J.,concur.opn.).)AsJusticeBrownnotes,this 0$* approachsubvertstheentirelegislativedistinctionbetweenmurderand %!, voluntarymanslaughterbyforeclosinganyinquiryintomaliceandthe 0'". circumstanceswhichwouldnegateitintheverysituationsinwhichthose ($0 factorsaremostcrucialtoassessmentofthedefendantstrueculpability: It 0*%2 takesnogeniustodiscernthatarulethatrelievesthePeopleoftheneedto +'4 provemalice% W becausethedefendantassertshedidnotharboranyis  problematic.(Id.at189190(Brown,J.,dis.opn.).) 0  ` TheCourtcannotpermitthiscollisionbetweenajudiciallycreated  doctrinewithoutstatutorybasisandtheexplicitlegislativeintentembodiedin 0  section192(a).RegardlessofwhetherthisCourttakesthisoccasiontodiscard   theseconddegreefelonymurderdoctrinealtogetherorsimplydrawstheline 0   atitsusetosupplantsection192(a)inshootinghomicides,theCourtshould   repudiatethesejuryinstructionsforeclosureofconsiderationofthestatutory 0  manslaughtergroundofheatofpassion.   0 `  C.0 ` ` BecauseSecondDegreeFelonyMurderisaJudicially 0  CreatedDoctrine,ThisCourtShouldAbandonor .~ SubstantiallyCurtailIttoAvoidSubversionofLegislative ,| Intent im. *z   ` TheRobertsonmajorityopinionpassinglynotesthe anomaly (x presentedbytheextensionoffelonymurdertosection246.3(themore  punitivetreatmentofdefendantswhokillnegligentlyratherthanintentionally): (x  TheassertedanomalyidentifiedbytheCourtofAppeal[thesuperseded  appellateopinioninRobertson]ischaracteristicoftheseconddegree (x felony-murderruleingeneralandisinherentinthedoctrine'spremisethatit ! isreasonabletoimputemalice--or,moreprecisely,toeliminateconsideration ( x# ofthepresenceorabsenceofactualmalice--because%  ofthedefendant's !% commissionofanunderlyingfelonythatisinherentlyandforeseeably (#x' dangerous.(Robertson,supra,34Cal.4that173.) $)  ` ThatpassageimpliesthatthereisnothingtheCourtcandoaboutthis (&x!+ inversionofthetraditionalgradationsofculpability.Whereastatuteproduces '"- suchadistortionthatmaybetrue,butnotwhenitisaresultofadoctrineof ()x$/ theCourtsownmaking.This creatureofjudicialinvention(Peoplev. *%1 Burroughs,supra,35Cal.3dat829fn.3)shouldnotbepermittedtotakeon (,x'3 alifeofitsown,beyondtheCourtscontrol.ThisCourthasthepowerand  theresponsibilitytoexaminewhetherthedoctrineissubvertingthe 0 Legislaturescalibrationofhomicideoffensesorisfailingtoserveitsasserted  policyobjectives.(SeeRobertson,supra,at176177(Moreno,J.,concur. 0  opn.).)    ` Ifthe anomalypresentedbythedoctrinesapplicationtocaseslike 0   RobertsonandRandle ischaracteristicoftheseconddegreefelony-murder   ruleingeneral(Robertson,supra,at173),asthemajorityopinionstates,then 0  theCourtshouldabandonitaltogetherforthereasonssuggestedbyJustices   BrownandMoreno. "#  19      ׀Alternatively,ifitisthedoctrinesapplicationto 0  section246.3whichposesamoreacuteproblemthanitsuseforother  dangerousfelonies(assuggestedbyJusticesKennardandWerdegar),the 0 Courtcanrulemorenarrowlyandsimplyprohibitfelonymurderliabilityfor  thatoffense.(Id.at182183(Kennard,J.,dis.opn.);id.at185186(Werdegar, 0 J.,dis.opn.).)Eitherway,itiswithintheprovinceofthisCourttoredressthe  injusticepresentedbythedoctrinesapplicationinacaselikethis,andRandle 0 respectfullyurgestheCourttodoso.     0"   TABLEOFCONTENTS    Page(s)    TABLEOFAUTHORITIESB .#iv    INTRODUCTIONC .h h 1   -Vm  -Vm%0 `    I.0` ` ` ASSUGGESTEDINTHECONCURRINGANDDISSENTING   OPINIONSINROBERTSON,THISCOURTSHOULD    REPUDIATETHESECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDER   THEORY.THISNONSTATUTORYTHEORYNECESSARILY   REPRESENTSEITHERANUNCONSTITUTIONAL   PRESUMPTIONOFMALICEAFORETHOUGHT,IN   VIOLATIONOFSANDSTROMANDYATES,ORAJUDICIAL   ABROGATIONOFTHESTATUTORYELEMENTOFMALICE,  INVIOLATIONOFPENALSECTION6,SEPARATIONOF  POWERS,ANDDUEPROCESS#C .+` ` #3-Vm%A݌  Ќ  4!  4!c0 ` 0 ` `  `   A.0 TheRobertsonConcurringandDissentingOpinions  CritiquesoftheLegitimacyofSecondDegreeFelonyMurder  #C .  #34!c~݌  Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   B.0 RobertsonRepresentsanApparentShiftinthisCourts  ConceptionofSecondDegreeFelonyMurderfromthe  HistoricModelof Imputing, Positing,or Presumingthe  ElementofMalice(asReiteratedinHansen)toOneof  EliminatingthatStatutoryElement#C .xx; #54!݌  Ќ  4!  4!*0 ` 0 ` `  `   C.0 IfSecondDegreeFelonyMurder PositsorImputesthe !  RequisiteElementofMalice,asIndicatedInHansenand " PreviousDecisions,ItViolatesDueProcessbyPresumingthe # MensReaElementfromthePredicateFactofUnlawful $  WeaponUse,inViolationofSandstromandYates#C .H #84!*E݌ % ! Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   D.0 Alternatively,IftheSecondDegreeFelonyMurderTheory '"# DoesEliminateMaliceasanElement(AsSuggestedin (#$ Robertson),ThenItViolatesSeparationofPowers,Due )$% Process,andPenalCodeSection6,asaJudicialCreationofa *%& NonStatutoryCrime#hhB ., #124!݌ +&' Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   E.0 Conclusion#hhB .# #164!݌  Ќ  -Vm  -Vm0 `    II.0` ` ` THESECONDDEGREEFELONYMURDERTHEORY  CONTRAVENESLEGISLATIVEINTENT#hhB .xx2` ` #17-Vm݌  Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   A.0 TheLegislatureHadNoExpectationorIntenttoAuthorizea   NewBasisforFelonyMurderLiabilityWhenItEnacted   Section246.3#hhB .\\& #174!݌   Ќ  4!  4!@0 ` 0 ` `  `   B.0 ApplicationoftheJudiciallyCreatedSecondDegreeFelony   MurderRuletoSection246.3ContravenestheLegislatures   Specification,inSection192,ThatHomicidesintheHeatof   Passion,IncludingShootingDeaths,AreVoluntary   Manslaughter#hhB .\\% #194!@[݌   Ќ  4!  4!b0 ` 0 ` `  `   C.0 BecauseSecondDegreeFelonyMurderisaJudicially  CreatedDoctrine,ThisCourtShouldAbandonor  SubstantiallyCurtailIttoAvoidSubversionofLegislative  Intent#hhB .  #214!b}݌  Ќ  -Vm  -Vm0 `    III.0` ` ` UNDERROBERTSONSREFORMULATIONOFTHEMERGER  STANDARD,RANDLESMURDERCONVICTIONMUSTBE  REVERSEDBECAUSETHEHOMICIDEWASTHERESULTOF  ACONVENTIONALASSAULTWITHNO COLLATERAL  ANDINDEPENDENTFELONIOUSDESIGNANDTHE  INSTRUCTIONSDEPRIVEDRANDLEOFJURY  DETERMINATIONOFTHECOLLATERALPURPOSE  PREDICATEFORFELONYMURDER#hhB .::/` ` #23-Vm;݌  Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   A.0 UnderRobertson,aSection246.3ViolationWillOnly ! SupportFelonyMurderWhereThereWasan Independent " andCollateralPurpose,DistinctfromaConventionalAssault # #hhB .  #23#@ F .  #4!݌ $  Ќ  4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   B.0 TheDeliveryofFelonyMurderInstructionsWasErrorUnder &"" RobertsonBecausetheEvidenceShowedaConventional '## Assault,andThereWasNo IndependentorCollateral ($$ FeloniousPurpose#hhB .* #264!݌ )%% Ќ   +'' 4!  4!0 ` 0 ` `  `   C.0 TheFailuretoSubmittheCollateralPurposeRequirementto  theJurorsDeprivedRandleofHisConstitutionalRightto  JuryDeterminationofEveryFactualPredicateNecessarytoa  MurderConviction#hhB .66* #284!݌  Ќ  -Vm  -Vm0 `    IV.0` ` ` BECAUSEROBERTSONALTERSTHEFELONYMURDER   ANDMERGERSTANDARDS,RETROACTIVEAPPLICATION   OFTHATOPINIONTORANDLESOFFENSEANDTRIAL   WOULDVIOLATEDUEPROCESS#hhB .00-` ` #32-Vm݌   Ќ  -Vm  -Vm>0 `    CONCLUSION#hhB .x x ` ` #36-Vm>Z݌   Ќ  -Vm  -Vm0 `    CERTIFICATEOFWORDCOUNT#hhB .(` ` #37-Vm݌   Ќ