Master California Court of Appeal upheld second-degree felony-murder based on unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851), where a death occurred during a high-speed flight in the stolen car. with this comprehensive case brief.
People v. Fuller is a hallmark California case on the scope of the second-degree felony-murder rule and the meaning of an "inherently dangerous felony" when assessed in the abstract. The case arose from a fatal collision during a police pursuit of suspects driving a stolen vehicle. The prosecution used California's second-degree felony-murder doctrine to transform a traffic-death prosecution into a murder conviction, arguing that unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle (Vehicle Code §10851) is an inherently dangerous felony and that the killing occurred while the felony was ongoing.
For law students, Fuller is significant for three reasons. First, it illustrates the mechanics of second-degree felony murder: the need for an inherently dangerous predicate felony, the "in the abstract" assessment, and the requirement that the homicide occur during the commission or immediate flight (res gestae) before the perpetrators reach a place of temporary safety. Second, it is a cautionary example: Fuller's analysis of inherent danger has been criticized for relying too heavily on the facts of the case rather than the statutory elements—an approach the California Supreme Court later curtailed. Third, its continuing-offense discussion (that §10851's "driving" component persists during flight) remains a useful doctrinal point even as legislative and judicial developments have narrowed, and in practical terms abolished, second-degree felony murder in California.
People v. Fuller, 86 Cal. App. 3d 618, 150 Cal. Rptr. 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
Fuller and an accomplice were observed in a shopping-center parking lot removing property from a locked automobile. They fled in a vehicle they had unlawfully taken and were driving without the owner's consent, in violation of Vehicle Code §10851. A police officer in a marked unit gave chase. During the ensuing high-speed pursuit through city streets, the driver of the stolen car (linked to Fuller) ran a red light at a high rate of speed and broadsided another vehicle, killing an innocent motorist. Prosecutors charged Fuller with second-degree murder on a felony-murder theory, identifying §10851 (unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of possession) as the predicate felony. The jury convicted. On appeal, Fuller argued that §10851 is not an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of second-degree felony murder and, in any event, that the felony had terminated before the homicide, making the felony-murder rule inapplicable.
1) Whether unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code §10851 constitutes an inherently dangerous felony, in the abstract, sufficient to support second-degree felony-murder liability; and 2) whether the homicide occurred during the commission of the felony (including immediate flight) such that the felony-murder rule applies.
In California, second-degree felony murder arises when a homicide occurs during the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life but not among the felonies enumerated in Penal Code §189 for first-degree felony murder. In assessing whether a felony is inherently dangerous, courts look to the elements of the felony in the abstract, not the specific manner in which it was committed, to determine whether the felony by its very nature carries a high probability of death. The felony-murder rule applies to killings committed in the perpetration of the felony or during immediate flight therefrom, continuing until the perpetrator reaches a place of temporary safety. Causation must link the felony to the death.
The court held that unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code §10851 is an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of second-degree felony murder and that the killing occurred during the commission and immediate flight from that felony. The second-degree murder conviction was affirmed.
In determining inherent danger, the court reasoned that automobiles are powerful, potentially lethal instrumentalities and that the felony defined by §10851—punishing both taking and continued unauthorized driving with intent to deprive—carries a substantial risk of violent confrontation or high-speed flight, creating a high probability of death. Although the abstract-elements test requires an analysis of the statute, the court implicitly relied on the typical risks attendant to vehicle theft and unauthorized driving (e.g., pursuits, reckless operation) to classify §10851 as inherently dangerous. On temporal scope, the court emphasized that §10851 criminalizes not only the initial taking but also the ongoing act of driving the stolen vehicle. As a continuing offense, the felony persisted at the time of the high-speed pursuit and fatal collision. Applying the res gestae doctrine, the court concluded the perpetrators had not reached a place of temporary safety; they were actively fleeing apprehension when the collision occurred. Accordingly, the homicide was committed in the perpetration of the felony and fell within the felony-murder rule. The causal connection between the felony and the death was not attenuated; rather, the fatality was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the felonious driving and attempted escape. Finally, rejecting the defense's narrowing arguments, the court held that neither the completion of the initial taking nor the characterization of the conduct as "mere traffic violations" severed felony-murder liability, because the underlying felony included continued unlawful driving with intent to deprive and because the death occurred during the immediate flight from that felony.
People v. Fuller became a prominent California authority treating Vehicle Code §10851 as an inherently dangerous felony capable of supporting second-degree felony murder and clarifying that §10851 is a continuing offense encompassing flight in the stolen vehicle. However, its inherent-danger analysis has been criticized for blurring the abstract-elements inquiry with the case's dangerous facts (the high-speed chase). The California Supreme Court later tightened the abstract-elements test and limited traffic-related predicates for second-degree felony murder. See, e.g., People v. Howard, 34 Cal. 4th 1129 (2005) (holding felony evasion under Veh. Code §2800.2 is not inherently dangerous in the abstract and disapproving reasoning akin to Fuller's fact-based approach). In addition, California's 2018 felony-murder reform (SB 1437, amending Penal Code §§188–189) effectively abolished second-degree felony murder by prohibiting the imputation of malice from participation in a non-enumerated felony and restricting felony-murder liability largely to enumerated §189 felonies and specified culpable mental states. Thus, Fuller's core holding on second-degree felony murder is of historical and doctrinal interest, and its continuing-offense and place-of-temporary-safety analyses remain instructive for timing and causation questions.
The predicate felony was unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code §10851. The prosecution argued, and the court agreed, that §10851—punishing both unauthorized taking and continued driving with intent to deprive—was inherently dangerous to human life and was ongoing during the high-speed flight that resulted in the fatal collision.
Fuller nominally applied the abstract-elements test, which asks whether the felony by its statutory elements carries a high probability of death. In practice, the court's analysis leaned on common factual patterns (e.g., dangerous police pursuits) to deem §10851 inherently dangerous. Later cases, especially People v. Howard (2005), criticized that fact-centered approach and reemphasized that courts must evaluate the statutory elements in the abstract rather than the way the defendant actually committed the crime.
Because §10851 criminalizes ongoing unauthorized driving, the felony had not terminated; it is a continuing offense. Under the res gestae doctrine, felony-murder liability extends through immediate flight until the perpetrators reach a place of temporary safety. The defendants were still fleeing and had not reached safety when they caused the fatal crash, placing the homicide within the temporal scope of the felony.
Only in a limited, historical sense. Fuller's specific conclusion that §10851 can serve as an inherently dangerous felony for second-degree felony murder has been undermined by later jurisprudence tightening the abstract-elements test (e.g., People v. Howard) and, more importantly, by SB 1437 (2018), which effectively eliminated second-degree felony murder in California by prohibiting imputation of malice from participation in non-enumerated felonies. Fuller remains useful for its discussion of continuing offenses and the place-of-temporary-safety concept.
California's first-degree felony-murder statute enumerates burglary. In Fuller, however, the People proceeded on a second-degree felony-murder theory predicated on §10851, and the appellate analysis centered on whether that non-enumerated felony was inherently dangerous and ongoing. Whether burglary could have furnished a viable enumerated-felony predicate would have depended on how the burglary charge was framed and whether the homicide occurred in its perpetration or immediate flight.
Use Fuller to (1) articulate the second-degree felony-murder framework (predicate felony, inherent danger in the abstract, res gestae/place of temporary safety, causation), (2) analyze whether a felony is a continuing offense, and (3) flag that later authority narrows Fuller's approach and that recent legislation largely abolishes second-degree felony murder in California. Always note the shift from fact-based to abstract-elements analysis when assessing inherent danger.
People v. Fuller powerfully demonstrates how the felony-murder rule can elevate a death occurring during a dangerous flight from a property crime into a murder conviction. By classifying unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle as inherently dangerous and emphasizing the statute's continuing-offense nature, the court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction based on a fatal crash during immediate flight.
Doctrinally, Fuller is best read today as a historical waypoint: it shows the reach of second-degree felony murder as it existed in California, while its analytical approach to inherent danger has been narrowed by the California Supreme Court and its practical effect curtailed by legislative reform. Its enduring value for students lies in its clear treatment of timing (res gestae and place of temporary safety), causation, and the methodology courts use—now firmly in the abstract—to evaluate whether a predicate felony is inherently dangerous.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →