444 N.Y.S.2d 1003 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981)
The prosecution arose from a gunpoint robbery carried out by the defendant and several accomplices at a heroin shooting gallery apartment in New York County.1 They first met at an uptown hotel to plan the robbery of acquaintances operating the gallery, then armed themselves with at least two loaded guns and proceeded to the apartment.2
At the apartment the group ordered the occupants to strip, tied them up, blindfolded them, and removed their money and clothing.3 The defendant participated directly in these acts as part of the robbery.4
After the defendant left the apartment and began descending the stairs, his female accomplice shot and killed Rudolph Connors, the apartment owner and her former lover.5 The defendant testified that the shooting stemmed from personal resentments arising from that prior relationship and was not connected to the robbery.6
The surviving robbery victims remained blindfolded and did not see who fired the fatal shot.7 The prosecution offered no testimony disputing the defendant's account of the events or the claimed motive.8
The case reached the Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County before Justice Eve M. Preminger on the defendant's motion concerning the felony murder count.9 Robert C. Dorf represented the defendant, and Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, represented the People through assistant Daniel McNulty.10
Whether the homicide of Rudolph Connors was committed in furtherance of the robbery within the meaning of the felony murder statute, when the defendant participated in the underlying robbery but claimed the shooting occurred for a private motive or without advancing the felony?11
Subdivision 3 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law states that one who causes the death of another in the course of and in furtherance of one of nine enumerated felonies, of which robbery is one, is guilty of murder in the second degree.12 The felony murder rule operates under the fiction of transferred intent, whereby intent to perpetrate the felony transfers to the homicide even absent specific intent to kill.13 At common law some legal relationship had to exist between the felony and the killing; more than mere coincidence of time and place was necessary.14 The phrase "in furtherance" places a relation requirement between the felony and the homicide, demanding a nexus of logic or plan.15 Excluded are deaths that are accidental, murders for a personal motive unrelated to the felony, and deaths brought about by bystanders, police, or other nonaccomplices.16 Where the killing is gratuitous and lacks any private motive that personalizes the act to the actor, the nexus between killing and felony still exists and the homicide remains within the ambit of the felony.17
Yes. The defendant was a willing and active participant in the underlying gunpoint robbery.18 He met with accomplices at an uptown hotel to arrange the robbery of acquaintances operating a heroin shooting gallery.19 He armed himself with at least two loaded guns.20 He proceeded to the apartment.21 He ordered the occupants to strip, tied them up, blindfolded them, and removed their money and clothing.22 After the defendant left the apartment and began descending the stairs, his female accomplice shot and killed Rudolph Connors, the apartment owner and her former lover. The surviving robbery victims remained blindfolded and did not see who fired the fatal shot. The prosecution offered no testimony disputing the defendant's account of the events.23 Although the defendant claimed the shooting stemmed from personal resentments arising from the prior relationship, the record before the court contains no evidence of any private motive to kill Rudolph Connors.24 The jury was specifically instructed that the People bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing occurred in furtherance of the robbery or in immediate flight therefrom and not for a private purpose of one of the participants.25 Because no private motive appears, the killing constitutes a gratuitous act by an accomplice that remains logically an integral aspect of the felony rather than an act outside its compass.26 The homicide satisfies the relation requirement of logic or plan that the statute imposes.27
The distinction between personal motive and lack of motive proves decisive under the statute.28 A private motive would break the nexus by showing the killer took advantage of the felony circumstances to carry out a vendetta that could have occurred at any time.29 This would render the murder solely that individual's responsibility.30 In contrast, a gratuitous killing without such motive does not personalize the act to the shooter alone.31 The other participants in the felony must share the consequences of the senseless act just as they share liability for the other criminal acts committed during the robbery.32 Defendant's arguments that the shooting failed to advance the robbery or escape amount to speculation about criminal expertise and do not supply the missing evidence of private motive that would mandate dismissal.33