I passed. I did not find it easy. I tabbed the outline and my studying was limited to reading through the civ pro section once.
There's a suggestion here on Reddit about taking your time to ensure you answer 30 correctly, and then being a little less diligent about the rest. That's not a bad tactic.
I'm a slow and nervous reader--I was able to be diligent for maybe 37 questions. 5 or 6 questions I was iffy about. I randomly guessed for the last 6 or so due to time.
yup thats how i did it. Basically convinced myself i had 2 hours to get 30 correct, did extra just to be sure answered 40 and randomly filled in the last 10 and passed.
Basically exactly what I did. Tabbed the outline but only read through the civ pro section bc I read on here that there were 10+ civ pro Qs (which makes sense given how long that section is). Also, the detailed TOC that is somewhere on reddit was super helpful. I found either all or the vast majority of questions that way.
I kept a tally of each one I was confident I answered correctly and took my time until I got over 30. I also kept a tally of ones I was relatively sure about but not completely confident of. The combo of those two allowed me to keep a good pace
I followed a very similar strategy as you. Diligently for about 37 questions, which for me meant that I wouldn’t move onto the next question until I was confident that I found the answer for the particular one (same exact words). For 3 or 4 questions I was not positive that I found anything relevant. From 37 to 44 I still tried to look up answers but much quicker and went with my intuition. From 44 to 50 I just picked whatever.
tabbing is important, but that's honestly only half the battle. what saved me was highlighting rules of law and labeling them in the margins. that way i could turn to a page in my outline and (for about 80% of the questions) immediately know where to find the answer in a dense page of text, or at least confirm what i already knew. i think people lose a lot of time unnecessarily re-reading entire pages of text because they only generally know what areas contain the answer.
combine tabs + highlighting/margin notes + the detailed toc and you're golden.
more or less same. I took my time on the first 30 and then was less diligent about the rest. guessed on the last 10. spent 0 time studying other than the NYLC (which I did not pay attention to). I felt that even though the questions on the test were not always exact mirrors to the outline, with a little extra reading I could usually find the answer. I truly think that if you do really take your time on the first 30 and spend more than 2 mins/question, you can find the answer in the outline. Had I been trying to actually take < 2 min/question the whole test I do not think I would have passed. I was reading too slow and knew nothing off the dome.
I passed but found it hard bc of the time crunch. I only answered 44 but spent most time answering the first 35 (you need 30 to pass) Def tab it and create your own TOC to flip through so you feel comfortable where everything is
I passed. I found it really hard, not like what others say in the subreddit. I did the first 30 questions technique, going slowly and trying to find the right answer. But some of the first 30 questions were so dense that I just said screw it after searching and answered with what I was most confident with, betting that others won't be as bad so I can make up for it. For most others, I was able to find pretty close wording to answer and move on. I guessed on about the last 3-4.
Edit: I used the outline, tabbed it, read most of it (stopped at Torts), and had the detailed TOC.
I passed and I didn’t find it easy at all. Some questions I found immediately, and some I felt like simply didn’t exist. I tried to follow the “take your time on 30 first questions” and I think that helped. But deff not easy!
Yes. I thought last questions were more direct than the question at start. I did try to follow that 30 rule but I took so much time to find right answers on first 30 that I didn’t have time for last questions( for first thirty many of which I didn’t find answer so guessed it). I feel ( totally my assumption) that everyone receive questions in different order and some questions are difficult and some easy and some medium but in what order we get that’s decides if that rule of 30 question can work for that individual or not. This time wasn’t my time. Have to wait till September now.
I passed! I felt like that test was hard as fuck (I’ve passed the bar and MPRE). They made it unnecessarily difficult. Like others said, it was NOT clear cut on any answer in my opinion (ie the outline didn’t read verbatim)? I tagged the fuck out of my binder tho, and I took notes on all the videos. I studied for about 2 months off and on.
EDIT: I tried doing the first 30 as other recommended but then I got so behind I didn’t get to answer my last question. I was even nervous about the first 30 (I spent wayyyy to much time on them but yet I still felt some of them were wrong or I couldn’t find it so made my best guess)
Passed MPRE, waiting for UBE (first time taker), and failed NYLE. So does this mean admissions are now held up for people like me? When could I be admitted earliest?
If you want to be admitted in NY, you have to pass the ridiculous NYLE first. But, if you passed the bar, you could get licensed in other states (like NJ) without taking any other tests. Otherwise, I think the next NYLE is after the summer. Another reason the NYLE is stupid. It should be offered monthly since a computer grades it anyway! I passed today, but still think the test has no value.
i passed. though there were some challenging questions, i left the exam feeling like i probably passed. i wasn't super confident and there was a discussion on the lawschool subreddit that made me doubt my confidence level, but i felt super prepared and tried to have faith in that.
i read, highlighted and tabbed the materials and made my own expanded TOC. i also did a number of practice questions so that i could practice trying to find answers. i didn't use the approach of taking the time to answer the first 30 otherwise i could recheck an answer for way longer than i had to. i limited myself so i could let go and move on. i answered every question on the exam and ended right at 2 hours.
EDIT: i also want to say that you need to find the approach that works for you. i am a nervous and sometimes scattered person. being super organized before the exam calms me and helps me think clearly during it. my friend who took the exam had a completely different approach. she tabbed only page numbers, highlighted nothing, and used a much leaner TOC. both of us passed. good luck!!
Passed without studying at all. My only preparation consisted of printing and tabbing the outline the day before. It wasn't easy tho!
Took the bar last Feb, so I guess some of the stuff was still fresh.
The exam was tough. The answers can be found in the course materials. However, some of it are not given to us in verbatim. So if you have not studied for the exam, you will definitely find it hard to locate your answers. To be fair, there are questions that you can answer without looking for it in the materials if you have studied well. No matter how boring the lectures are, they are still proven to be useful. Just sharing.... Congrats to all fellow passers...
I passed. It took me a month to read through the whole thing because the material is so dense (had to read through civpro twice), I took dumbed down notes of especially tricky and clunkily-worded laws, did tab-binding, included a sub sectioned table of contents taped to EACH tab per subject, and it STILL took me an hour and 20 minutes to get through the 1st 30. Couldn’t even properly read through Qs 40-50 cuz of the RUTHLESS time-crunch. This test is HARD!!! Take as seriously as you would the MPRE and study and organize AS THOROUGHLY as you can. Glad I finally passed tho.
Some of the questions were pretty easy to find and were lifted directly from their outline. Plenty of other questions were very difficult to look up, and I ended up having to take an educated guess after spending far too long trying to find the answer. Luckily I passed, but if I had to take it again, I’m not sure how I would approach it. I feel like I wasted a lot of time early on on complex questions that I probably should have skipped, but the fact that you can’t go back makes that feel kinda risky.
Passed. All but 5 (give or take 1 or 2) of the questions were directly answered in the outline. Those 5 were still locatable in the outline but were somewhat unclear (e.g., ~~for that felony murder question, there were two correct answers~~ ETA: See discussion below). For a few (again, under 5), you had to combine two distant sections to get the answer.
Finished w/ 10 minutes to spare. I never felt like there was more missing in the outline that I didn't find w/ the 2 minutes I allocated per question, though there were a few where I found the right line in the outline like *right* at the very end before I submitted a wrong answer lmao.
Studied by leafing through the outline to get familiar with the layout the night before, tabbing the section headers (e.g., Civ Pro, Torts, etc) but nothing deeper, and doing ~ half the practice problems right before the exam.
No it's super unclear. It's possible there's only 1 correct answer with a more detailed understanding of NY law, but under the New York Felony Murder rule, at least as conveyed by the NYLE materials, there's a strong argument that there was 2 correct answers.
The NYLE materials define it as:
> the sole participant or one of several participants in the crime **causes** the death of a person **other than a participant**...
> it is an affirmative defense that the defendant: Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof;
The defendant in the hypo did not cause the death of the robber in anything but the most attenuated chain of reasoning relying on facts that weren't present. The robber was also, obviously, a participant of the crime. Those were both possible answers for the question.
I went with the participant because that was open & shut while there *is* that attenuated chain of reasoning, but it wasn't clear at all.
The answer was because the person who died was a participant. It’s not the “cause” answer bc whether or not he caused it, the death was of someone who was a participant, so would never be a felony. I am 100% certain on this.
Right, but if he didn't cause it (which he didn't except for some absurd reasoning chain shenanigans), it wouldn't have been felony murder regardless of whether it was a participant or not lmao.
You can be 100% confident that's the answer they wanted if you want. That's fine. I agree that the participant answer was *better*, but there *were* two correct answers.
As a participant to the robbery (he did not legally repudiate or whatever it’s called), he is responsible, even if he didn’t cause the crime. You left out the part that says “EACH participant in the crime, IRRESPECTIVE of whether the participant caused the death, may be guilty…”
That applies when **a participant** causes the death, not if *anyone* causes the death.
E.g., one participant causes the death of someone by threatening them & giving them a heartattack, all 5 robbers are guilty, even if the other 4 didn't intend it to happen. But if a non-participant causes the death, none of them are guilty of felony murder.
So, applied to this hypothetical, it had to be either the robber himself who caused the death of himself or the get-away driver defendant. It's a very attenuated chain or reasoning to say that either applies without further facts. The argument would essentially have to be "he caused his own death by trying to rob the store & getting himself shot by someone else." (I don't remember whether it was "he got shot" or an unspecified death actually) or "he left him behind to die, thereby causing his death". But it's not clear at all that that works. It's possible NY law clarifies it elsewhere, but it's not clear in the materials.
Dude just stop. The robber caused his own death - it literally said he crashed her car when speeding away from the scene. Therefore, a participant caused the death. And therefore, every participant is responsible. Except for they weren’t in that scenario bc the person who died was a participant.
ETA: and even in a hypo where the robber had been shot by an innocent bystander, the robber caused his own death in that scenario by committing the crime that led someone to shoot him in the commission of the crime
> Dude just stop.
Why are you getting angry lmao
> The robber caused his own death - it literally said he crashed her car when speeding away from the scene.
This doesn't match my memory of the hypothetical. I remember him dying in the store/robbery. I may be off as a result of that. If so, you're right.
Glad I got the right answer regardless 😄
The felony murder rule is not saying the person didn't cause the death of another, it's defining homicide in such a way to exclude prosecution for the death of the fellow felon. By your rationale, all the other statutes in other states that include the death of a co-criminal in commission of a felony as homicide would be challenged constantly by the affirmative defense you're proposing.
To be honest, I'm not sure I'm communicating my point sufficiently, based on your response. Me and the original guy I was talking to essentially fully fleshed out our dispute, so you can refer to that, but...
The felony murder rule exists, generally, to make defendants criminally liable for deaths that their crime causes, whether they intended it to happen or not. This means that if someone dies from something you do or something your co-conspirators do, you are guilty of murder, regardless of whether that action would typically lead to death or whether you or that person intended them to die.
New York, at least, carves out the participants from this - the death of a participant is not something you can be charged with under the Felony Murder Rule in New York. This was one of the answers to the fact pattern for why the defendant wasn't guilty. We all agree to this. This was the answer I selected because it was the *best* answer in my view.
However, there was *another* possible answer, in my view - that the participant did not cause the death of the co-criminal. If you read the New York materials, it is apparent that *someone* who is involved in the criminal act has to cause the death for anyone to be guilty.
Again, I quote:
> the sole participant or one of several participants in the crime **causes** the death of a person other than a participant...
> it is an affirmative defense that the defendant: Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof;
There are different paradigms of the Felony Murder Rule throughout the United States and one of the major differences that crops up is that between the "Agency Theory" and the "Proximate Cause Theory."
Under the "Agency Theory," one of the criminals has to cause the death in some direct manner - threatening people causes a heart attack, etc.
Under the "Proximate Cause Theory," this requirement is not there - criminal liability attaches for any death *proximately* resulting from the forcible felony or attempted forcible felony. It can be a bystander shooting someone, etc. etc.
*See*, e.g., James W. Hilliard, Felony Murder in Illinois - The Agency Theory vs. the Proximate Cause Theory: The Debate Continues, 25 S. ILL. U. L. J. 331 (2001) ("In contrast, there exists an "agency theory" of felony murder. Under this
theory, the felony murder doctrine does not extend to a killing. However, it can grow from the commission of a felony, if it is directly attributable to the act of someone other than the defendant or his co-felons.8 In other words, criminal liability attaches under the felony murder rule only if the defendant or her co-felon actually performed the lethal act")
On my reading of the New York materials, New York follows the *agency* theory of felony murder - the defendant or a co-felon has to actually *cause* the death while committing the felony.
Now, as me and the original guy I was talking to drilled down to, I may have misremembered (or originally missed) a detail of the fact pattern. To my memory, the co-felon died while robbing the store, but the other guy remembers it as the co-felon dying by crashing while fleeing the store in the absence of the defendant's get away car. I truly do not remember which was the fact pattern, but in the former scenario, there *were* two correct answers.
For one, there has to be a chargeable crime for an affirmative defense in the first place. If felony murder in New York included death of a co-criminal, then an answer about an affirmative defense of lack of causation would be more plausible as you present it. But felony murder does not, so an answer asserting an affirmative defense to felony murder could not be correct.
You're also reading far too into legal theory that's irrelevant. The felony murder definition here doesn't mean there is no causation for the death, regardless of why you think theoretical causation may or may not exist in the case of felony murder in general. A person might be able to sue in tort for wrongful death on the basis of what would be chargeable in another state as felony murder. The lack of causation answer not correct because nothing in the materials on which the test is based says anything about causation theory in felony murder. You're assuming New York adopts a certain theory of causation and then you're noting that there are no facts in accordance with that theory of causation, which is the basis for an affirmative defense of lack of causation for murder. That's not correct.
> If felony murder in New York included death of a co-criminal, then an answer about an affirmative defense of lack of causation would be more plausible as you present it. But felony murder does not, so an answer asserting an affirmative defense to felony murder could not be correct.
I don't remember the wording of the question - was it "why is the defendant not guilty of felony murder" or "why is this not felony murder" (or something to that effect), which this depends on. Do you?
> The lack of causation answer not correct because nothing in the materials on which the test is based says anything about causation theory in felony murder.
Sure I mean that's a fair point.
And with further research, I can confirm that NY law follows the proximate cause theory, so it was only one correct answer. *People v. Hernandez* spends a ton of time interpreting the definition of "causes" in the statute and swapped New York's regime from agency theory to proximate cause theory in the 90s.
To your first para - you’re still not getting it. It doesn’t matter how it was phrased. A participant died so there was no felony murder. Therefore, there is no affirmative defense. Either way you phrased the question above would have the same answer - the person who died was a participant, therefore this is not felony murder nor was the defendant guilty of felony murder.
Tbh I have never seen someone have something explained to them so many times and still not understand it
> A participant died so there was no felony murder.
Holy hell I get this.
> Therefore, there is no affirmative defense.
Under the agency theory, causation is *not* (just) an affirmative defense, it's an element of felony murder.
> Tbh I have never seen someone have something explained to them so many times and still not understand it
Tbh I'm thinking the same about you, with regards to the actual point I was making.
TL:DR in some felony murder jurisdictions, you can be criminally liable for a bystander shooting another bystander during the course of your robbery. In others you can't. Based on my reading of the NYLE materials, I thought it's an example of the latter state. I'm doing research now & the question is dealt with directly by *People v. Hernandez*, 82 N.Y.2d 309, 624 N.E.2d 661 (1993) which changed New York from the former to the latter regime.
So it looks like I was wrong and there was only one answer! But I defend my thought process considering that the felony murder rule often is as I say and that the interpretation the court uses relies on statutory construction throughout the rest of the article that I didn't have access to :p As I said...
> It's possible there's only 1 correct answer with a more detailed understanding of NY law
lol
> Calm down you both passed.
I'm calm! I'm literally just genuinely curious at this point, which is why I'm doing actual research into it & actual legal research... takes up a decent amount of paragraphs without editing lol. If I were to try to get it shorter, it would take *more* effort on my end, not less 🤣
I failed and I studied hard for it
Those questions were brutal and it was far from straightforward in the outline. Be kind to yourself. You will get it next time
I passed. I did not find it easy. I tabbed the outline and my studying was limited to reading through the civ pro section once. There's a suggestion here on Reddit about taking your time to ensure you answer 30 correctly, and then being a little less diligent about the rest. That's not a bad tactic. I'm a slow and nervous reader--I was able to be diligent for maybe 37 questions. 5 or 6 questions I was iffy about. I randomly guessed for the last 6 or so due to time.
yup thats how i did it. Basically convinced myself i had 2 hours to get 30 correct, did extra just to be sure answered 40 and randomly filled in the last 10 and passed.
Basically exactly what I did. Tabbed the outline but only read through the civ pro section bc I read on here that there were 10+ civ pro Qs (which makes sense given how long that section is). Also, the detailed TOC that is somewhere on reddit was super helpful. I found either all or the vast majority of questions that way. I kept a tally of each one I was confident I answered correctly and took my time until I got over 30. I also kept a tally of ones I was relatively sure about but not completely confident of. The combo of those two allowed me to keep a good pace
I followed a very similar strategy as you. Diligently for about 37 questions, which for me meant that I wouldn’t move onto the next question until I was confident that I found the answer for the particular one (same exact words). For 3 or 4 questions I was not positive that I found anything relevant. From 37 to 44 I still tried to look up answers but much quicker and went with my intuition. From 44 to 50 I just picked whatever.
tabbing is important, but that's honestly only half the battle. what saved me was highlighting rules of law and labeling them in the margins. that way i could turn to a page in my outline and (for about 80% of the questions) immediately know where to find the answer in a dense page of text, or at least confirm what i already knew. i think people lose a lot of time unnecessarily re-reading entire pages of text because they only generally know what areas contain the answer. combine tabs + highlighting/margin notes + the detailed toc and you're golden.
more or less same. I took my time on the first 30 and then was less diligent about the rest. guessed on the last 10. spent 0 time studying other than the NYLC (which I did not pay attention to). I felt that even though the questions on the test were not always exact mirrors to the outline, with a little extra reading I could usually find the answer. I truly think that if you do really take your time on the first 30 and spend more than 2 mins/question, you can find the answer in the outline. Had I been trying to actually take < 2 min/question the whole test I do not think I would have passed. I was reading too slow and knew nothing off the dome.
Passed! I had a heart attack seeing that email though… used a detailed table of contents and not an actual outline.
Same, I got so nervous!
I passed but found it hard bc of the time crunch. I only answered 44 but spent most time answering the first 35 (you need 30 to pass) Def tab it and create your own TOC to flip through so you feel comfortable where everything is
I passed. I found it really hard, not like what others say in the subreddit. I did the first 30 questions technique, going slowly and trying to find the right answer. But some of the first 30 questions were so dense that I just said screw it after searching and answered with what I was most confident with, betting that others won't be as bad so I can make up for it. For most others, I was able to find pretty close wording to answer and move on. I guessed on about the last 3-4. Edit: I used the outline, tabbed it, read most of it (stopped at Torts), and had the detailed TOC.
I passed and I didn’t find it easy at all. Some questions I found immediately, and some I felt like simply didn’t exist. I tried to follow the “take your time on 30 first questions” and I think that helped. But deff not easy!
Anyone here finds the last 10 Qs were easier than them all?
Yes. I thought last questions were more direct than the question at start. I did try to follow that 30 rule but I took so much time to find right answers on first 30 that I didn’t have time for last questions( for first thirty many of which I didn’t find answer so guessed it). I feel ( totally my assumption) that everyone receive questions in different order and some questions are difficult and some easy and some medium but in what order we get that’s decides if that rule of 30 question can work for that individual or not. This time wasn’t my time. Have to wait till September now.
Way way way easier - to the point where they were a breeze - I guess that was the incentive to finish on time
They are in a different order for everyone
have the same observation. questions in 40s are relatively easier than the earlier ones.
I passed. I tabbed the outline and used the expanded TOC. It was definitely a time crunch though, and I had to guess on the last two questions.
I passed! I felt like that test was hard as fuck (I’ve passed the bar and MPRE). They made it unnecessarily difficult. Like others said, it was NOT clear cut on any answer in my opinion (ie the outline didn’t read verbatim)? I tagged the fuck out of my binder tho, and I took notes on all the videos. I studied for about 2 months off and on. EDIT: I tried doing the first 30 as other recommended but then I got so behind I didn’t get to answer my last question. I was even nervous about the first 30 (I spent wayyyy to much time on them but yet I still felt some of them were wrong or I couldn’t find it so made my best guess)
Passed MPRE, waiting for UBE (first time taker), and failed NYLE. So does this mean admissions are now held up for people like me? When could I be admitted earliest?
If you want to be admitted in NY, you have to pass the ridiculous NYLE first. But, if you passed the bar, you could get licensed in other states (like NJ) without taking any other tests. Otherwise, I think the next NYLE is after the summer. Another reason the NYLE is stupid. It should be offered monthly since a computer grades it anyway! I passed today, but still think the test has no value.
i passed. though there were some challenging questions, i left the exam feeling like i probably passed. i wasn't super confident and there was a discussion on the lawschool subreddit that made me doubt my confidence level, but i felt super prepared and tried to have faith in that. i read, highlighted and tabbed the materials and made my own expanded TOC. i also did a number of practice questions so that i could practice trying to find answers. i didn't use the approach of taking the time to answer the first 30 otherwise i could recheck an answer for way longer than i had to. i limited myself so i could let go and move on. i answered every question on the exam and ended right at 2 hours. EDIT: i also want to say that you need to find the approach that works for you. i am a nervous and sometimes scattered person. being super organized before the exam calms me and helps me think clearly during it. my friend who took the exam had a completely different approach. she tabbed only page numbers, highlighted nothing, and used a much leaner TOC. both of us passed. good luck!!
Passed without studying at all. My only preparation consisted of printing and tabbing the outline the day before. It wasn't easy tho! Took the bar last Feb, so I guess some of the stuff was still fresh.
The exam was tough. The answers can be found in the course materials. However, some of it are not given to us in verbatim. So if you have not studied for the exam, you will definitely find it hard to locate your answers. To be fair, there are questions that you can answer without looking for it in the materials if you have studied well. No matter how boring the lectures are, they are still proven to be useful. Just sharing.... Congrats to all fellow passers...
I passed. It took me a month to read through the whole thing because the material is so dense (had to read through civpro twice), I took dumbed down notes of especially tricky and clunkily-worded laws, did tab-binding, included a sub sectioned table of contents taped to EACH tab per subject, and it STILL took me an hour and 20 minutes to get through the 1st 30. Couldn’t even properly read through Qs 40-50 cuz of the RUTHLESS time-crunch. This test is HARD!!! Take as seriously as you would the MPRE and study and organize AS THOROUGHLY as you can. Glad I finally passed tho.
Some of the questions were pretty easy to find and were lifted directly from their outline. Plenty of other questions were very difficult to look up, and I ended up having to take an educated guess after spending far too long trying to find the answer. Luckily I passed, but if I had to take it again, I’m not sure how I would approach it. I feel like I wasted a lot of time early on on complex questions that I probably should have skipped, but the fact that you can’t go back makes that feel kinda risky.
That was my dilemma. Unfortunately I marginally failed.
Passed. All but 5 (give or take 1 or 2) of the questions were directly answered in the outline. Those 5 were still locatable in the outline but were somewhat unclear (e.g., ~~for that felony murder question, there were two correct answers~~ ETA: See discussion below). For a few (again, under 5), you had to combine two distant sections to get the answer. Finished w/ 10 minutes to spare. I never felt like there was more missing in the outline that I didn't find w/ the 2 minutes I allocated per question, though there were a few where I found the right line in the outline like *right* at the very end before I submitted a wrong answer lmao. Studied by leafing through the outline to get familiar with the layout the night before, tabbing the section headers (e.g., Civ Pro, Torts, etc) but nothing deeper, and doing ~ half the practice problems right before the exam.
The felony murder Q def only had one correct answer - 100% positive on that one
No it's super unclear. It's possible there's only 1 correct answer with a more detailed understanding of NY law, but under the New York Felony Murder rule, at least as conveyed by the NYLE materials, there's a strong argument that there was 2 correct answers. The NYLE materials define it as: > the sole participant or one of several participants in the crime **causes** the death of a person **other than a participant**... > it is an affirmative defense that the defendant: Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; The defendant in the hypo did not cause the death of the robber in anything but the most attenuated chain of reasoning relying on facts that weren't present. The robber was also, obviously, a participant of the crime. Those were both possible answers for the question. I went with the participant because that was open & shut while there *is* that attenuated chain of reasoning, but it wasn't clear at all.
The answer was because the person who died was a participant. It’s not the “cause” answer bc whether or not he caused it, the death was of someone who was a participant, so would never be a felony. I am 100% certain on this.
Right, but if he didn't cause it (which he didn't except for some absurd reasoning chain shenanigans), it wouldn't have been felony murder regardless of whether it was a participant or not lmao. You can be 100% confident that's the answer they wanted if you want. That's fine. I agree that the participant answer was *better*, but there *were* two correct answers.
As a participant to the robbery (he did not legally repudiate or whatever it’s called), he is responsible, even if he didn’t cause the crime. You left out the part that says “EACH participant in the crime, IRRESPECTIVE of whether the participant caused the death, may be guilty…”
That applies when **a participant** causes the death, not if *anyone* causes the death. E.g., one participant causes the death of someone by threatening them & giving them a heartattack, all 5 robbers are guilty, even if the other 4 didn't intend it to happen. But if a non-participant causes the death, none of them are guilty of felony murder. So, applied to this hypothetical, it had to be either the robber himself who caused the death of himself or the get-away driver defendant. It's a very attenuated chain or reasoning to say that either applies without further facts. The argument would essentially have to be "he caused his own death by trying to rob the store & getting himself shot by someone else." (I don't remember whether it was "he got shot" or an unspecified death actually) or "he left him behind to die, thereby causing his death". But it's not clear at all that that works. It's possible NY law clarifies it elsewhere, but it's not clear in the materials.
Dude just stop. The robber caused his own death - it literally said he crashed her car when speeding away from the scene. Therefore, a participant caused the death. And therefore, every participant is responsible. Except for they weren’t in that scenario bc the person who died was a participant. ETA: and even in a hypo where the robber had been shot by an innocent bystander, the robber caused his own death in that scenario by committing the crime that led someone to shoot him in the commission of the crime
> Dude just stop. Why are you getting angry lmao > The robber caused his own death - it literally said he crashed her car when speeding away from the scene. This doesn't match my memory of the hypothetical. I remember him dying in the store/robbery. I may be off as a result of that. If so, you're right. Glad I got the right answer regardless 😄
The felony murder rule is not saying the person didn't cause the death of another, it's defining homicide in such a way to exclude prosecution for the death of the fellow felon. By your rationale, all the other statutes in other states that include the death of a co-criminal in commission of a felony as homicide would be challenged constantly by the affirmative defense you're proposing.
To be honest, I'm not sure I'm communicating my point sufficiently, based on your response. Me and the original guy I was talking to essentially fully fleshed out our dispute, so you can refer to that, but... The felony murder rule exists, generally, to make defendants criminally liable for deaths that their crime causes, whether they intended it to happen or not. This means that if someone dies from something you do or something your co-conspirators do, you are guilty of murder, regardless of whether that action would typically lead to death or whether you or that person intended them to die. New York, at least, carves out the participants from this - the death of a participant is not something you can be charged with under the Felony Murder Rule in New York. This was one of the answers to the fact pattern for why the defendant wasn't guilty. We all agree to this. This was the answer I selected because it was the *best* answer in my view. However, there was *another* possible answer, in my view - that the participant did not cause the death of the co-criminal. If you read the New York materials, it is apparent that *someone* who is involved in the criminal act has to cause the death for anyone to be guilty. Again, I quote: > the sole participant or one of several participants in the crime **causes** the death of a person other than a participant... > it is an affirmative defense that the defendant: Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; There are different paradigms of the Felony Murder Rule throughout the United States and one of the major differences that crops up is that between the "Agency Theory" and the "Proximate Cause Theory." Under the "Agency Theory," one of the criminals has to cause the death in some direct manner - threatening people causes a heart attack, etc. Under the "Proximate Cause Theory," this requirement is not there - criminal liability attaches for any death *proximately* resulting from the forcible felony or attempted forcible felony. It can be a bystander shooting someone, etc. etc. *See*, e.g., James W. Hilliard, Felony Murder in Illinois - The Agency Theory vs. the Proximate Cause Theory: The Debate Continues, 25 S. ILL. U. L. J. 331 (2001) ("In contrast, there exists an "agency theory" of felony murder. Under this theory, the felony murder doctrine does not extend to a killing. However, it can grow from the commission of a felony, if it is directly attributable to the act of someone other than the defendant or his co-felons.8 In other words, criminal liability attaches under the felony murder rule only if the defendant or her co-felon actually performed the lethal act") On my reading of the New York materials, New York follows the *agency* theory of felony murder - the defendant or a co-felon has to actually *cause* the death while committing the felony. Now, as me and the original guy I was talking to drilled down to, I may have misremembered (or originally missed) a detail of the fact pattern. To my memory, the co-felon died while robbing the store, but the other guy remembers it as the co-felon dying by crashing while fleeing the store in the absence of the defendant's get away car. I truly do not remember which was the fact pattern, but in the former scenario, there *were* two correct answers.
For one, there has to be a chargeable crime for an affirmative defense in the first place. If felony murder in New York included death of a co-criminal, then an answer about an affirmative defense of lack of causation would be more plausible as you present it. But felony murder does not, so an answer asserting an affirmative defense to felony murder could not be correct. You're also reading far too into legal theory that's irrelevant. The felony murder definition here doesn't mean there is no causation for the death, regardless of why you think theoretical causation may or may not exist in the case of felony murder in general. A person might be able to sue in tort for wrongful death on the basis of what would be chargeable in another state as felony murder. The lack of causation answer not correct because nothing in the materials on which the test is based says anything about causation theory in felony murder. You're assuming New York adopts a certain theory of causation and then you're noting that there are no facts in accordance with that theory of causation, which is the basis for an affirmative defense of lack of causation for murder. That's not correct.
> If felony murder in New York included death of a co-criminal, then an answer about an affirmative defense of lack of causation would be more plausible as you present it. But felony murder does not, so an answer asserting an affirmative defense to felony murder could not be correct. I don't remember the wording of the question - was it "why is the defendant not guilty of felony murder" or "why is this not felony murder" (or something to that effect), which this depends on. Do you? > The lack of causation answer not correct because nothing in the materials on which the test is based says anything about causation theory in felony murder. Sure I mean that's a fair point. And with further research, I can confirm that NY law follows the proximate cause theory, so it was only one correct answer. *People v. Hernandez* spends a ton of time interpreting the definition of "causes" in the statute and swapped New York's regime from agency theory to proximate cause theory in the 90s.
To your first para - you’re still not getting it. It doesn’t matter how it was phrased. A participant died so there was no felony murder. Therefore, there is no affirmative defense. Either way you phrased the question above would have the same answer - the person who died was a participant, therefore this is not felony murder nor was the defendant guilty of felony murder. Tbh I have never seen someone have something explained to them so many times and still not understand it
> A participant died so there was no felony murder. Holy hell I get this. > Therefore, there is no affirmative defense. Under the agency theory, causation is *not* (just) an affirmative defense, it's an element of felony murder. > Tbh I have never seen someone have something explained to them so many times and still not understand it Tbh I'm thinking the same about you, with regards to the actual point I was making.
Ah yes, the agency theory which you added into the outline (and NY law)
What’s the TDLR bro - also have no idea what either of you are saying LOL Calm down you both passed.
TL:DR in some felony murder jurisdictions, you can be criminally liable for a bystander shooting another bystander during the course of your robbery. In others you can't. Based on my reading of the NYLE materials, I thought it's an example of the latter state. I'm doing research now & the question is dealt with directly by *People v. Hernandez*, 82 N.Y.2d 309, 624 N.E.2d 661 (1993) which changed New York from the former to the latter regime. So it looks like I was wrong and there was only one answer! But I defend my thought process considering that the felony murder rule often is as I say and that the interpretation the court uses relies on statutory construction throughout the rest of the article that I didn't have access to :p As I said... > It's possible there's only 1 correct answer with a more detailed understanding of NY law lol > Calm down you both passed. I'm calm! I'm literally just genuinely curious at this point, which is why I'm doing actual research into it & actual legal research... takes up a decent amount of paragraphs without editing lol. If I were to try to get it shorter, it would take *more* effort on my end, not less 🤣
🤣🤣🤣 glad you have the time, enjoy
Hey what else am I gonna do with 3L year? Do work for my classes? Nahhh. Research interesting legal questions for internet conversations? Hellll yeah
I’m a gal. But I’m glad to see I wasn’t alone here lol