In Michigan, the charge of felony murder sits at the intersection of criminal law and moral philosophy. It raises pressing questions about the way we assign blame and punishment, especially in situations where the outcome—rather than the intent—drives the severity of the sentence.
What Is Felony Murder?
Under Michigan law, felony murder is classified as first-degree murder and carries the harshest sentence possible: mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This charge arises when a person causes the death of another while committing or attempting to commit a felony, regardless of whether they intended to kill or harm anyone.
To convict someone of felony murder, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
- The defendant caused the death of another person—that is, the death resulted from the defendant’s actions.
- At the time, the defendant either intended to kill, intended to cause great bodily harm, or knowingly engaged in conduct that created a high risk of death or serious injury.
- The death occurred during the commission (or attempted commission, or while assisting in the commission) of a specified felony.
What About Aiders and Abetters?
Michigan’s felony murder rule also applies to accomplices—those who did not directly cause the death but helped commit the underlying felony. “Helping” includes encouraging, assisting, or performing acts that enable the crime. Crucially, to be held liable, the accomplice must have intended to help commit the felony—not necessarily to kill or harm anyone.
This means someone can be sentenced to life in prison without ever having touched a weapon, inflicted an injury, or foreseen a fatal outcome.
A Troubling Hypothetical
Consider this example: Four 18-year-olds decide to steal expensive sneakers from a department store. Each pair is worth $250. They plan to dash in, grab the shoes, and sprint out—no weapons, no threats, no confrontation.
As they run out, the store’s cashier gives chase. In the chaos, the cashier slips on a wet floor, suffers a neck fracture, and dies. Suddenly, all four teens are charged with felony murder.
Let’s pause here. The underlying crime—1st Degree Retail Fraud—is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Given their age, the teens would likely have received probation had no one been injured. But because someone died during the commission of that felony, they now face the possibility of spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Intent vs. Outcome
Cases like these spark an ongoing debate: should we punish people for what they did, or for what happened as a result of what they did?
From one perspective, the teens committed a low-level property crime; they never intended to hurt anyone. From another, a life was lost—and the law views that loss through the lens of accountability, regardless of intent. But is it just to impose the harshest punishment Michigan law allows when the outcome is unforeseeable, accidental, and completely out of proportion to the original act?
The law of felony murder often blurs the line between moral culpability and legal responsibility. Critics argue it removes nuance from sentencing, treating teenagers stealing sneakers the same as seasoned criminals committing armed robbery.
And yet, defenders contend that when someone dies during a felony, society has an interest in drawing a hard line. The risk of loss of life—even unintentional—should carry serious consequences.
A Legal Doctrine Worth Reexamining?
At the heart of the felony murder rule lies a fundamental question: should we judge individuals based on their actions and intent, or based on the outcomes that follow—however unforeseeable those outcomes may be?
In Michigan and many other states, that question continues to shape lives and drive courtroom battles. As legal professionals and citizens, it’s worth asking whether our laws are calibrated not just to punish, but to reflect a fair sense of justice.