Opinion ID: 2636172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cortinas was entitled to his requested felony-murder instruction but the failure to give the instruction was harmless

Text: We begin our analysis by considering the district court's refusal to give Cortinas' requested jury instruction advising that afterthought robbery may not serve as a predicate felony for felony murder. Cortinas challenges this decision, asserting that his requested instruction correctly stated the legal limitations on the use of robbery to seek a first-degree murder conviction under the felony-murder rule. District courts have broad discretion to settle jury instructions. [10] While we normally review the decision to refuse a jury instruction for an abuse of that discretion or judicial error, we review de novo whether a particular instruction, such as the one at issue in this case, comprises a correct statement of the law. [11] While this appeal was pending, we decided Nay and joined the majority of jurisdictions that prohibit the use of an afterthought robbery as a predicate felony for felony murder. [12] Our reasons for doing so were clear: (1) the purpose of the felony-murder statute general deterrence of dangerous felonies is not served by punishing a killing as first-degree murder if an accused lacks a felonious intent at the time of the killing; and (2) absent an accused's contemporaneous intent, the malice necessary to prosecute a killing as first-degree murder cannot legally be implied from the underlying felony. [13] Based on this clarification of the felony-murder rule as it relates to robbery, we concluded that failing to give the proposed instruction in Nay amounted to judicial error. [14] Similar to the instruction proposed in Nay, Cortinas' proposed instruction on felony murder required the jury to find that he intended to commit the robbery before he mortally wounded the victim. This, we conclude, accurately corresponds to the clarification in Nay regarding the necessary timing of the intent to commit a robbery to satisfy the felony-murder rule. Applying Nay's understanding of the felony-murder doctrine to this case, we conclude that Cortinas was entitled to his correctly framed felony-murder instruction. Having concluded that instructional error occurred in this case, we next consider that error in light of the rule set forth in Stromberg v. California [15] and determine whether such errors are subject to harmless-error review.