In People v. Fuller, 1. On February 20, 1977, Fuller and another person broke into four vans in a car lot and took their spare tires. An officer observed them rolling tires into their car and approached them. Fuller and his accomplice got into their car and fled. While fleeing, they ran a red light and hit another car, resulting in the other driver’s death. 2. Although Fuller was charged with murder under the felony-murder rule, the trial court struck the murder charges. The felony-murder rule states that all murder committed while committing another felony is considered first degree murder. However, the judge was reluctant to apply it during trial because it equates an accidental killing from a petty theft to that of premeditated murder. 3. In People v. Fuller, 86 Cal. App. 3d. 618 (1978), …show more content…
86 Cal. App. 623 states that PC 189, the felony murder rule, imposes liability for deaths that occur as a felony is being carried out even if the killing was intentional or accidental. The purpose of this law is to deter people from killing negligently or accidently. Regardless of its intent, any burglary within section 459 is sufficient to invoke the felony murder rule. The Supreme Court supports that if the felony and murder are a part of a continuous transaction then there are sufficient grounds to apply the felony murder rule. However, if the burglars found safety at some point and committed murder later, the felony murder rule would not apply. Additionally, the defense in the case outlined according to Boss dicta that robbery is distinct from burglary because robbery is not confined and is spread out distance and timewise. In the case of robbery, escape is almost as essential as the execution of the theft. However, it was argued that leaving the scene with stolen property is equally important in robberies and burglaries. Boss dicta has also not been used to make a distinction in any other California case so it would not be fair to apply it in this