## Facts

- Ernest Edward Caldwell and Warren Edwin Washington participated with Anthony Belvin in an armed robbery of a fast-food restaurant.
- Belvin displayed a sawed-off shotgun, ordered employees to the floor, and took money from a register; Washington entered through a window, moved toward the manager’s office, and was armed with a handgun.
- The manager called law enforcement during the robbery.
- Police arrived as the robbery ended; Caldwell drove the getaway car and fled at high speed, ran traffic signals, and at times drove without headlights.
- When police vehicles hemmed in the car, Washington pointed a shotgun at an officer’s car; the shotgun discharged and fell away.
- The men exited and took cover; officers reported Belvin waving a handgun, and at least one officer believed Caldwell was armed (no gun was recovered from Caldwell).
- Police ordered the men to drop their weapons; officers fired, and Belvin was struck and killed by police gunfire.
- There was no evidence that Caldwell or Washington fired at officers; evidence showed continued weapon display and refusal to surrender under circumstances officers perceived as an imminent threat.
- Caldwell claimed he did not know about the robbery until police arrived and that Belvin forced him to drive away.

## Issues

1. Whether surviving co-felons may be convicted of murder when police kill a co-felon during a confrontation, where the killing is a foreseeable response proximately caused by the felons’ own provocative conduct.
2. Whether the provocative-act murder doctrine should be reconsidered, given that traditional felony murder does not apply to killings by victims or police.
3. Whether the evidence and jury instructions sufficiently established defendants’ own provocative conduct and proximate causation, rather than resting liability solely on the decedent co-felon’s acts.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed Caldwell’s second degree murder conviction and Washington’s first degree murder conviction (and their robbery convictions).
- The court reaffirmed that the felony-murder rule does not apply to killings committed by victims or police.
- The court held that the provocative-act doctrine applies when a killing by police is proximately caused by a felon’s life-endangering conduct committed with conscious disregard for life.
- The record contained substantial evidence that both Caldwell and Washington personally engaged in provocative, dangerous conduct that foreseeably induced police gunfire.
- The court rejected the argument that Belvin’s own conduct alone caused his death; the jury could find defendants’ conduct was a substantial, foreseeable factor in the lethal confrontation.

## Legal Principles

- Felony murder in California does not extend to killings committed by victims or police officers.
- A defendant may be guilty of murder under the provocative-act doctrine when:
  - the defendant (or an accomplice) intentionally commits a life-endangering act,
  - the act is done with conscious disregard for life and a high probability of death,
  - the act proximately causes a victim or police officer to respond with deadly force, and
  - the killing is a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
- Proximate cause focuses on whether defendants’ conduct was a substantial and foreseeable factor producing the fatal response; lawful or unlawful police conduct is not the controlling question if the response was reasonably foreseeable.
- Provocative-act murder does not depend on imputing malice from one felon to another; malice is shown by each defendant’s own culpable conduct and mental state contributing to the fatal confrontation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the murder convictions because the defendants’ own armed-robbery-related conduct and ensuing life-endangering actions during flight and confrontation foreseeably provoked police to fire, making the co-felon’s death proximately attributable to the surviving participants under the provocative-act doctrine, even though felony murder did not apply to a police killing.


People v. Caldwell, 36 Cal. 3d 210 (Cal. 1984)