Facts
- In 1947, James Smith and two confederates committed an armed robbery of a Philadelphia supermarket.
- Police confronted the robbers during their escape, and a gun battle occurred.
- A bystander was fatally shot during the exchange; the evidence did not conclusively establish whether the fatal shot was fired by a robber or by a police officer resisting the robbery.
- At Smith’s 1948 trial, the jury was instructed that the identity of the shooter was legally irrelevant and that Smith could be convicted of first-degree murder if the robbery was the proximate cause of the death.
- Smith was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Years later, Smith sought habeas corpus relief, asserting he had not knowingly waived appellate rights and challenging the felony-murder instruction.
- The lower court denied relief, and Smith appealed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the matter as a delayed direct appeal.
Issues
- Whether the felony-murder rule permits a murder conviction when the fatal shot is fired by a third party (such as police) acting in opposition to the felony, rather than by the felon or an accomplice.
- Whether Smith knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a direct appeal, or instead was entitled to appeal nunc pro tunc.
Decision
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the order denying relief and treated the case as a direct appeal nunc pro tunc.
- The court held the felony-murder rule does not apply when the lethal act is committed by a person resisting the felony (e.g., a police officer), rather than by the felon or a co-felon acting in furtherance of the felony.
- The court rejected the proximate-cause theory of felony murder previously used to sustain liability for deaths caused by adversaries of the felons.
- The court held Smith had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
- The court ordered a new trial because the jury instruction allowed conviction under an erroneous expansion of felony-murder liability.
Legal Principles
- Felony-murder liability requires that the killing be committed by the felon or an accomplice acting in concert in perpetrating or attempting the felony; it does not extend to killings by third parties acting in opposition to the felony.
- Tort-style proximate-cause concepts are not a proper basis to expand criminal murder liability to deaths caused by adversaries of the felon.
- Waiver of the right to appeal must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; a failure to appeal, without such waiver, permits an appeal nunc pro tunc to obtain full review.
Conclusion
Pennsylvania confined felony murder to killings committed by felons or their accomplices and granted Smith a nunc pro tunc appeal because he had not knowingly waived appellate review, requiring a new trial due to an incorrect jury instruction that permitted conviction for a death caused by a resisting third party.