## Facts

- Kathey James financially supported a household that included her children by manufacturing methamphetamine in a small mobile home for about a decade.
- While James was “cooking” methamphetamine inside the trailer, a fire and explosion occurred and destroyed the home.
- Three of James’s children died in the fire.
- The methamphetamine manufacturing process involved volatile chemicals (including Coleman fuel and red phosphorus) whose vapors could ignite from common ignition sources such as a hot plate or stove.
- James testified she had manufactured methamphetamine for years without incident, claimed she took precautions (including using a hot plate in a locked bathroom), and denied the chemicals posed danger to the family or home.
- The prosecution introduced evidence that the process created a substantial risk of fire or explosion and presented testimony that James was making methamphetamine on a kitchen stove when the fire began.

## Issues

1. Whether manufacturing methamphetamine qualifies as an “inherently dangerous felony” under California’s second-degree felony-murder rule when evaluated in the abstract rather than by the defendant’s manner of commission.
2. Whether second-degree felony-murder convictions may be sustained where the jury expressly based the verdicts on felony murder with manufacturing methamphetamine as the predicate felony.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court applied the abstract-elements test to determine inherent danger, focusing on the statutory offense rather than the defendant’s specific conduct.
- The court held manufacturing methamphetamine is inherently dangerous to human life in the abstract.
- Because the predicate felony qualified as inherently dangerous, the second-degree felony-murder convictions based on deaths occurring during methamphetamine manufacturing were legally valid.

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree felony murder in California may be predicated on a non-enumerated felony only if the felony is inherently dangerous to human life.
- Inherent danger is assessed by an abstract-elements test: the court considers the general offense and its elements, not the facts of the particular case.
- A felony is inherently dangerous in the abstract if it cannot be committed without creating a high probability that someone may die.
- Defendant-specific precautions, past experience without incident, or the particular manner of commission do not control the inherent-danger classification under the abstract-elements approach.

## Conclusion

The court upheld three second-degree felony-murder convictions, concluding that manufacturing methamphetamine is inherently dangerous to human life when viewed in the abstract and therefore can serve as the predicate felony for second-degree felony murder when deaths result during its commission.


People v. James, 62 Cal. App. 4th 244 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)