Court reverses murder convictions(Judicial Tyranny#5)

N C Times ^ | Aug. 24, 2005 | SCOTT MARSHALL

[radar101]

SAN DIEGO ---- A state appeals court Wednesday overturned three second-degree murder convictions and the life prison sentence a suspected immigrant smuggler received in connection with a June 2003 crash near Borrego Springs that killed three illegal immigrants in the back seat of his car.

Jurors convicted Antonio D. Sanchez, 26, of three counts of second-degree murder based on a determination that another crime ---- fleeing police with a willful disregard for the safety of others ---- is "an inherently dangerous felony," an appeals court opinion stated. The court and attorneys on both sides of the appeal agreed, however, that it is not "an inherently dangerous felony" within the so-called felony murder rule, the opinion stated.

The murder convictions and Sanchez's sentence of 53 years to life in prison were reversed. The appeals court ordered that Sanchez's case be sent back to the Superior Court in Vista for prosecutors to decide whether to re-try Sanchez on issues the jury did not resolve and for Sanchez to be resentenced for the crime of fleeing police.

[radar101]

This is BS. As a law enforcement officer, I was constantly bereated and badgered by superiors, the public, the media, allied agencies, prosecutors, and " Victim's Rights groups" that any pursuit was "Life-Threatening". I'd love to put any one of those judges in the front seat of a patrol car during a pursuit, then ask him/her" Was that dangerous?"

[Prime Choice]

A state appeals court Wednesday overturned three second-degree murder convictions and the life prison sentence a suspected immigrant smuggler received in connection with a June 2003 crash near Borrego Springs that killed three illegal immigrants in the back seat of his car.

And the courts wonder why nobody with more than half a brain wants to bother serving on a jury anymore.

Frickin' black-robed tyrannical morons, the lot of 'em.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Boy, they must have some interesting language in their murder related laws. I was taught that if a death occurred in the course of breaking another law, that the charge of murder was allowed. My common sense says that fleeing the hot pursuit of the police is "inherently dangerous" as opposed to "inherently not dangerous". I can only guess that if they rule it IS inherently dangerous then they have to place the blame on the law enforcement agencies without which there could be no hot pursuit.

I agree, justice and judges need a lot of overhaul. But a jury ruling should overrule a judge. This perp could have asked for a bench ruling and it looks like he made a mistake to ask for a jury trial.

[middie]

I suspect that the state (or as the phrase in Calif. is --The People) would have demanded a jury trial. It's not just the defendant's right to a jury, the state also has that right. Juries in that part of Calif. are properly simmering with anger at the flood of illegals on their street and neighborhoods and are more likely to be harsh in their deliberations.

[festus]

If they'd just hanged em after the trial like is supposed to happen then this would be an interesting but moot ruling.

[MamaTexan]

The court and attorneys on both sides of the appeal agreed, however, that it is not "an inherently dangerous felony" within the so-called felony murder rule, the opinion stated.

The 'legal' system has so prostituted our laws that is now committing suicide by judicial fiat.

Stories like this glaringly show it for the sham that it is.

[spunkets]

"The court and attorneys on both sides of the appeal agreed, however, that it is not "an inherently dangerous felony" within the so-called felony murder rule, the opinion stated."

This means the man was convicted for 2nd degree murder not because of some law, but because of pure opinion. Note that "attys for both sides" includes the prosecutor. I fail to see how the State's failure to prosecute the appeal is the judge's fault.

You'd have to post the "felony murder rule" for any real sense to be made of this.

[radar101]

Felony Murder Rule - States that any death, which occurs during the commission or attempt to commit certain felonies, which include arson, rape or other sexual offenses, burglary, robbery or kidnapping, is first-degree murder and all participants in the felony can be held equally culpable, including those who did no harm, possessed no weapon, and did not intend to hurt anyone. Intent does not have to be proven for anything but the underlying felony. Even if, during the commission of the underlying felony, death occurs from fright, a heart attack for instance, it is still first-degree murder.

[Sandy]

This isn't judicial tyranny; it's legislative laziness. The so-called "second-degree felony-murder rule" is a judicially-created doctrine, as is the "inherently dangerous" test. It should be the legislature's responsibility to define second degree felony murder, including listing exactly which felonies may serve as the predicate felony. Until that happens, you can't blame the judges for winging it.