This criminal case deals primarily with the felony-murder rule. Defendant Roy and a friend, McHargue, were charged with two counts of robbery and two counts of first degree murder. The facts leading to the charges are as follows. The two victims picked up both defendants, who were hitchhiking. The prosecutor argued that the defendants planned to drive to a remote location, rob and kill both victims, and steal their pickup truck. When defendants were arrested, a search of Roy produced a knife, cash, and a watch later identified as belonging to victim Mannix. Roy also made statements to fellow inmates in jail, and these statements were admitted into evidence at trial. The facts indicated that Roy killed victim Clark while defendant McHargue was struggling with defendant Mannix, and that after Roy killed Clark, Roy helped McHargue rob and kill Mannix. The jury found Roy guilty of second-degree murder for killing Clark, but found him not guilty of robbing Clark. They found him guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of Mannix. Roy appealed, stating that the finding of second degree murder in the Clark killing eliminated the theory of premeditation. The only way that the first-degree murder could stand would be under the theory of the felony murder rule. In connection with this, defendant claims that the court committed a Beeman error in the instructions, in that the court failed to tell the jury that an aider or abettor must not only know the unlawful purpose of the accomplice but must intend to encourage or facilitate the commission of the offense-in this case, a robbery. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the felony murder verdict, stating that the Beeman error was harmless. The federal court agreed. The court felt that no jury could fail to find that Roy intended to aid McHargue in robbing Mannix.
1. Summarize the facts of the Roy case.
2. What is the legal issue in Roy?
3. Why did the court affirm the lower court's ruling?