That's not correct. That may be a logical reading of the words of the statute, but that's not how the courts interpret it.
For example, here's an Indiana case where a man was convicted of murder under that exact part of the statute for an attempted robbery:
Johnathon Exum v. State of Indiana
The intended victim pulled a gun on the defendant and his accomplices, the defendant fled, but his accomplice was shot and killed. He was convicted of murder under the felony murder subsection of the statute even though he wasn't the shooter and it was his friend who was killed.
Here's what the court said about that subsection of the statute:
Our legislature has pronounced that "A person who . . . kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit . . . robbery . . . commits murder, a felony." Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2). In its interpretation of this statute, our supreme court has determined that the State need not prove intent to kill, only the intent to commit the underlying felony. Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 690 (Ind. 1993). Our supreme court further held in Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 1999), that the statutory language "kills another human being while committing" does not restrict the felony murder provision only to instances in which the felon is the killer, but may also apply equally when, in committing any of the designated felonies, the felon contributes to the death of any person. Citing, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2); see also, Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 2000) (co-perpetrator was shot and killed by robbery victim and the defendant was convicted of felony murder for that death). The Palmer court used this interpretation of the felony murder statute to uphold a conviction of Palmer for the murder of his co-perpetrator who had been shot by a law enforcement officer.
So all that's required is that the felony the defendant intended to commit 'contributes to the death of any person.' They don't have to be the killer themselves.
fox59.com
