## Facts

- Joseph H. Anderson ran a catering business in Los Angeles; William Russell Locklear worked with him and was staying overnight at Anderson’s home.
- Shortly after midnight, Locklear heard Anderson call out, “Bill, he’s got a gun,” and saw Anderson enter the bedroom followed by Harrison Butler with his hand in his coat pocket.
- Butler produced a gun; Anderson tried to seize it; the gun discharged and Anderson fell.
- Locklear attempted to apprehend Butler; Butler shot Locklear, who lost consciousness; Butler left before Locklear regained consciousness.
- Butler testified he went to Anderson’s home to collect unpaid wages for catering work, not to steal.
- Butler stated Anderson made an indecent proposal, offered to double the money owed, and later went toward the bedroom to get money; Butler claimed that when he entered the bedroom, Anderson approached him with a pistol.
- The prosecution proceeded on a first-degree felony-murder theory predicated on robbery, though robbery was not separately charged.

## Issues

1. Whether instructional and related errors deprived Butler of his primary defense to first-degree felony murder by obscuring the distinction between robbery and a forcible attempt to collect a bona fide debt.
2. Whether the jury was adequately instructed on when the intent to steal must exist to support robbery as the predicate felony for felony murder.
3. Whether any such errors required reversal of the murder conviction and affected the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon conviction.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction and vacated the death judgment.
- The court held that errors at the guilt phase deprived Butler of his primary defense to robbery-based felony murder and were prejudicial to the first-degree felony-murder verdict.
- The court affirmed the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon against Locklear.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery requires a specific intent to steal; a violent attempt to collect a bona fide debt is not necessarily robbery if the actor lacks felonious intent to steal.
- For robbery to serve as the predicate felony for felony murder, the jury must be properly instructed on the required timing and existence of the intent to steal.
- When the prosecution’s first-degree felony-murder theory depends on robbery, failure to instruct in a manner that permits the jury to accept a defense negating felonious intent is prejudicial and requires reversal of the murder conviction.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was not properly guided on the difference between robbery and forcible debt collection and on the intent-to-steal requirement central to the felony-murder theory, the murder conviction and death sentence were reversed, while the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon conviction was affirmed.


People v. Butler, 421 P.2d 703 (Cal. 1967)