People v. Fuller, 86 Cal. App. 3d 618, 150 Cal. Rptr. 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
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.
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.
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.