Hangovers and Accomplice Liability

To all the 1Ls studying for Crim Law, check out this interesting case in Florida where a 20-year-old was busted for accomplice liability and felony murder.

He was hungover in the morning and lent his car to some buddies so they could go pick up some grub… or so he thought. Instead, his buddies tried to steal a safe full of weed and things got a bit complicated. A young woman was killed in the confusion of the botched burglary.
Now the 20-year-old car lender is sleeping off his hangover in prison for life.

According to the national ACS blog, “Although derived from English common law, this aspect of the felony murder rule has been abolished by other common law countries. ”

Much more interesting than your TA’s hypo, eh?

Good luck on exams, have a great holiday, and don’t let anybody ever borrow your car. Tell them to take mass transit.

The students of W&M ACS are a bit busy studying for exams. Regularly scheduled programming should return next semester, with the occasional post when authors are inspired.

With that in mind, if you come up with a structure do my homework paper for your article first, then basically youll just be filling in different sections when you write your article
Published in: on December 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm Comments (1)

One Comment

  1. On December 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm John Said:

    From the article: “‘The felony murder rule serves important interests,’ said Mr. Rimmer, the prosecutor in the Holle case, ‘because it holds all persons responsible for the actions of each other if they are all participating in the same crime.'”

    The felony murder rule may very well serve “important interests” but this quote doesn’t make any suggestion as to what those interests might be, it merely states how the rule operates.

    Similarly, the argument that “all perpetrators of the underlying felony, not just the one who pulls the trigger” fails to provide a reason for its normative claim. It is certainly true that “[i]t never would have happened unless Ryan Holle had lent the car” but if we are going to rely on but-for causation we can include the person who sold the defendant the car in the first place.

    The obvious justification is deterrence which can only operate when the defendant knows a crime is going to be committed. Apparently his buddies told him exactly what they were going to do, and his defense was that he didn’t believe them. This case is an example of an aggressive use of the conspiracy rule, not the felony murder doctrine.