Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Melendrez, with his girlfriend, Ortega. drove to a gas pump at a local convenience store and parked his car. Melendrez left his gun in the car at Ortega's urging. Melendrez got out of his car and walked toward the store. D drove into the convenience store parking lot, yelling from his truck. D shot the unarmed Melendrez once from inside his vehicle and twice after exiting his vehicle while yelling 'that's what you fucking get. You shouldn't have fucking went past my house, stupid bitch.' Ortega ran to D and confronted him. She told D that 'it wasn't Melendrez's fault' because Melendrez had just been picking up Ortega. D said, 'that's what he fucking gets for passing by my house.' D then got in his car and drove away. As he drove toward his home, D called 911 to report what he had done. When the police arrived at D's address, D was outside and talking on his cellular telephone. D was detained. D told the police that he had 'messed up his life to protect his family.' D waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with Detective Meyers. D admitted to shooting Melendrez. D was convicted of first-degree felony murder. D appealed. D claimed that shooting at a motor vehicle cannot serve as a predicate felony in the context of a felony murder conviction. D contends that shooting at or from a motor vehicle is a crime of assault or battery and is not independent of or collateral to a murder committed during the course of the shooting. P argues that shooting at or from a vehicle should uniformly be treated as a collateral felony because, unlike aggravated battery, it is 'a crime which itself carries a high degree of risk to people other than the murder victim.'
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co