## Facts

- Norman Jay Dillon, age 17, lived near a secluded farm where Dennis Johnson and his brother illegally cultivated marijuana.
- On an earlier visit, Johnson confronted Dillon and companions with a shotgun, ordered them off the property, and warned he might shoot them if they returned.
- Days later, Dillon returned with seven companions to steal marijuana; Dillon carried a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, and others carried firearms.
- The group crossed posted barriers, avoided an alarm system, and positioned themselves around the marijuana field.
- As Dillon waited, Johnson approached carrying a shotgun.
- Dillon rapidly fired his rifle, striking Johnson multiple times; Dillon and the group fled.
- Johnson suffered nine bullet wounds and died several days later.
- The prosecution treated the killing as occurring during an attempted robbery of the marijuana crop.

## Issues

1. Whether a standing crop (marijuana plants in the field) may be the subject of robbery.
2. Whether California’s first-degree felony-murder rule is statutory such that it cannot be judicially abolished.
3. Whether the felony-murder rule violates due process by permitting murder liability without proof of malice.
4. Whether the mandatory life sentence for first-degree felony murder is “cruel or unusual punishment” under the California Constitution as applied to Dillon.

## Decision

- The court held that a standing crop can be the subject of robbery and rejected a realty/personalty distinction that would exclude such property.
- The court held California’s felony-murder rule is a creature of statute and is not subject to wholesale judicial abrogation.
- The court rejected the due process attack, reasoning malice is not an element of felony murder as defined by the Legislature.
- The court held the mandatory penalty for first-degree felony murder is subject to the California Constitution’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment and may be invalid as applied when grossly disproportionate.
- Applying proportionality analysis, the court found the first-degree felony-murder punishment grossly disproportionate to Dillon’s offense and individual culpability given his youth and fear during the confrontation.
- The court modified the judgment by reducing the homicide conviction from first-degree felony murder to second-degree murder and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A standing crop may constitute property capable of being taken by robbery when the taking is accomplished by force or fear from the person or immediate presence of another.
- In California, the felony-murder rule is statutory in origin; courts may not abolish it on common-law grounds.
- Felony murder does not violate due process on the theory that it dispenses with malice, because malice is not an element of felony murder as legislatively defined.
- Under article I, section 17 of the California Constitution, a statutorily mandated punishment is unconstitutional as applied if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense as committed and/or the offender’s individual culpability.
- When an as-applied disproportionality violation is found in a first-degree felony-murder case, the judgment may be modified to impose punishment consistent with second-degree murder.

## Conclusion

The court broadened robbery to include standing crops and upheld the validity of California’s statutory felony-murder rule, but it reduced Dillon’s conviction to second-degree murder because imposing the mandatory first-degree felony-murder punishment on a frightened 17-year-old was grossly disproportionate under the California Constitution.


People v. Dillon, 34 Cal. 3d 441, 668 P.2d 697 (Cal. 1983)