Also known as: felony murder merger rule · felony-murder-merger rule · merger doctrine · felony murder merger
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common-law doctrine that treats solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy as misdemeanors that merge into the completed felony when the principal offense is carried out by the defendant or another actor.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Bob and Jeffrey agreed to divert medications and Bob solicited Gavin to assist. Gavin later completed the diversion using a different method. The completed felony absorbs the preliminary solicitation and conspiracy charges, barring separate convictions on the inchoate offenses.
A defendant assaults a child causing death. The assault felony merges into the homicide because it is an integral part of the killing. The felony-murder rule cannot apply because the underlying felony lacks independence from the homicide.
A defendant conspires with others to rob a store and the robbery is completed. The conspiracy merges into the completed felony. Separate punishment for the conspiracy is barred once the principal offense occurs.
Defendants agree to commit a felony and one participant completes it. The conspiracy merges with the completed crime. The merger prevents cumulative convictions for both the agreement and the finished offense.
The rule prevents treating preliminary inchoate conduct as a separate felony once the principal offense is completed by any connected actor.
Yes. The common law merger doctrine applies when any actor connected to the inchoate conduct completes the principal offense, even if the defendant did not personally finish it.
Once the principal offense is completed, the conspiracy merges into the felony. Separate convictions on the conspiracy are barred to avoid multiple punishments for a single course of conduct.
…offense in one provision, § 1951, manifested an intent not to punish commission of two offenses cumulatively. Unlike the merger doctrine, petitioner’s position does not question that the Government could charge a conspiracy even when the substantive crime that was its object had been completed. His concern is with the…