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.
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.