 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
People v Butler
S. Ct. CA 1967
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: A employed DF on one occasion to do catering work. A did not pay him for the work, and when df requested payment A asked him to wait a few days. On the evening of May 18th, defendant went to A’s home to obtain payment. DF Bulter shot and killed Anderson and also wounded Locklear. Df claimed that A owed him money and refused to pay and offered an indecent exchange. He approached A with a gun to inspire collection. A grabbed the gun and was killed. L tried to apprehend df but was himself shot and lost consciousness. Df was gone when L regained consciousness.
Issue: Whether Jury instruction that if DF honestly believed the money was his and his intent to take money did not arise until after killing, killing could not be murder in perpetration of robbery was proper in prosecution for murder in first degree?
Holding: Where the defendant had killed victim in perpetration of robbery was necessary for conviction for first-degree murder, denial of defendant's defense of honest belief that money sought from victim belonged to defendant was miscarriage of justice which required reversal of first-degree murder conviction.
Procedure: Defendant was charged by information with the murder of Joseph H. Anderson and with assault with intent to murder William Russell Locklear. A jury convicted defendant of first degree felony murder and of assault with a deadly weapon; it fixed the penalty for the murder at death. This appeal is automatic. Conviction of murder is reversed.
Rule: Essential element of robbery is felonious intent. A bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a right or claim to property negates felonious intent.
Ct Rationale: Df testimony that his sole intention was to try to get his money. The jury was instructed only to consider whether df intended on taking the money from A before A was shot, as required for 1st degree murder. That instruction with the trial court’s approval of the Prosecution’s argument completely removed consideration as to whether df intended to steal. The df has Constitutional right to have every significant issue determined by the jury.
Minority - Distinction is between possession and ownership. The element within robbery is not the rightful or actual owner of the property sought, but the taking of prop in possession of another.
PL A: No such “honest belief,” defense exists.
Def A: Intent to deprive an owner permanently of his property is essential element of robbery.
Animus furandi - Intent to steal, felonious deprivation of property of owner permanently. Larceny requirement.
Ipse dixit - He himself said it.