Error in Instructing Jury on Second Degree Murder in California

In People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, the defendant shot and killed his wife. He argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on second degree felony murder which had the effect of relieving the jury of the necessity of finding malice aforethought. That instruction provided that a murder committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life, such as assault with a deadly weapon, is second degree murder. The California Supreme Court held that "to allow such use of the felony-murder rule would effectively preclude the jury from considering the issue of malice aforethought in all cases wherein homicide has been committed as a result of a felonious assault -- a category which includes the great majority of all homicides. This kind of bootstrapping finds support neither in logic nor in law. We therefore hold that a second degree felony-murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charged." (People v. Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 539.) In Ireland, the defendant shot and killed his wife, and the underlying predicate felony was assault with a deadly weapon. (Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d 525-528, 538.) The Court held that "a second degree felony-murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charged." (Id. at p. 539.) The Court explained: "To allow such use of the felony-murder rule would effectively preclude the jury from considering the issue of malice aforethought in all cases wherein homicide has been committed as a result of a felonious assault--a category which includes the great majority of all homicides. This kind of bootstrapping finds support neither in logic nor in law." (Id. at p. 539.)