Opinion ID: 1984601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: In the Perpetration of a Felony

Text: The accused next contends that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for felony murder because the murder and the robbery were not clearly connected in point of time, place, and causal relation. She points out that the murder and the robbery occurred at different times and that events transpired which significantly interrupted the `continuity of action.' She concludes that under these circumstances there was insufficient evidence to show that the murder was committed in the perpetration of the robbery. Md. Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 410. [6] In support of this position, the accused relies upon only two cases, State v. Adams, 339 Mo. 926, 933, 98 S.W.2d 632, 637 (1936), and Bizup v. People, 150 Colo. 214, 218, 371 P.2d 786, 788 (1962). In each of these cases, the murder was committed while the perpetrators were leaving the scene after the underlying felony (burglary and robbery respectively) had been completed. Consequently, a question arose as to whether the murder was committed in the perpetration of the felony. In each of these two cases, the court held that notwithstanding the sequence of events the murder was committed in the perpetration of the felony. Manifestly, these cases are inapposite. Here, the record shows that the underlying felony  the robbery  was not completed until after the murder had been committed, so that the question considered in Adams and Bizup does not even arise. Moreover, evidence of the killing constituted the only evidence adduced to show the existence of force, an element essential to establish the underlying felony of robbery. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any contention that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for robbery because there was insufficient evidence of force, logic dictates that the murder was committed in the perpetration of the felony. We are persuaded on the basis of the record before us that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for felony murder. Accordingly, we shall remand the case for a new trial.