Case of a Cocaine Delivery - Essay Example

According to the dangerous act and the dangerousness requirement, Sam committed a dangerous act of delivering cocaine and shooting at Bobbie.

After Sam delivers cocaine to Bobbie, he discovers that the amount provided by Bobbie is $100 short provoking his act of shooting at Bobbie.

“A felony murder merges into lesser crimes if manslaughter results (Crump, Cohen, John, and Pether, 109).

The felony murder rule only applies if a felony other than manslaughter is committed.

In this case, the merger rule does not apply to Sam’s case as the death of the victim occurred as an accident as Bobbie was firing back to scare Sam who was shooting at him. Due to the circumstances of the shooting such that Bobbie was shooting over his shoulder as he ran, the killing of the victim occurred as manslaughter.

In this case, the victim’s death was manslaughter and the merger rule does not apply in this case.

Bobbie fires back at Sam after Sam fires at him killing a bystander instead of Sam.

The foreseeability of a connection between a felon and the cause of death must be explicit (Crump, Cohen, John, and Pether, 114).

A felony murder is committed if the time, distance, and causal relationship of the killing are connected to the commission of the underlying felony (Crump, Cohen, John, and Pether, 114).

Felony murder is committed if death is caused by a co-felon (Crump, Cohen, John, and Pether, 114).

Under the proximate causation, Sam committed felon murder as it is due to his dangerous act of firing at Bobbie that Bobbie returned fire killing the victim. Additionally, had Sam not shot at Bobbie, no killing could have resulted.

Under intervening cause, the unanticipated turn of events that Bobbie would return fire led to the death of the victim thus validating the cause. Had Sam shot at Bobbie killing him, the bystander would not have been killed, hence, the intervening causation is a valid stance.

Finally, under the agency theory, although dealing and buying make both Sam and Bobby criminals for handling cocaine and possessing firearms, they were not co-felons thus the agency theory does not hold grounds. If Sam and Bobbie were co-felons in the sense of having the same goals and objectives in the commission of the felony, the death of the victim would be covered under agency causation.

Sam committed felony murder under the proximate causation as it is due to his dangerous act that Bobbie retaliated by killing the victim.