El Pueblo v. García Cartagena y otro, 2024 TSPR 59

Background

In 2010, José García Cartagena and Víctor J. Díaz Fontánez participated in planning and executing an attempted armed robbery at Joyería San José (a jewelry store), involving several co-conspirators.
During the attempted robbery, a co-conspirator (Feliciano Rivera) was fatally shot by the store owner's son, who acted in self-defense.
The weapon used by the robbers was a toy gun; no actual robbery was completed as the plan was interrupted by the shooting.
Both defendants were convicted by a jury of conspiracy, attempted robbery, and felony murder (statutory murder under Article 106(b) of the 2004 Puerto Rico Penal Code), and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
The Court of Appeals reversed the felony murder convictions, finding insufficient evidence of the required intent to kill; the Puerto Rico Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari, ultimately issuing a divided decision leaving the appellate court's ruling in place.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether intent to kill is required for statutory (felony) murder under Article 106(b) of the 2004 Penal Code	The State argued that intent could be established by knowledge or recklessness (dolo eventual); not only direct intent is required.	Defendants argued Article 106(b) requires actual intent to kill or knowledge that death was a highly probable result (dolo directo de segundo grado); mere risk or negligence is insufficient.	The Court (plurality) held intent to kill is required; mere risk is not enough under Art. 106(b), affirming the reversal of murder convictions.
Whether the death during the attempted robbery qualifies as a "consequence natural" (natural consequence) attributable to the defendants	The State argued that participating in an armed, violent robbery makes such a death a natural consequence.	Defendants argued the death resulted from actions of a third party (the store owner’s son) and was not a necessary or natural consequence of their acts.	The Court found the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the death was a natural consequence as required.
Whether the use of a toy gun and lack of intent to kill negates the felony murder liability	The State claimed the initial plan to obtain a real gun shows awareness of risk, maintaining felony murder liability.	Defendants highlighted the ultimate use of a toy gun and absence of a plan to kill, showing lack of malice or intent to kill.	The Court agreed with the defense that lack of intent or knowledge of a near-certain risk precludes felony murder liability.
Whether jury unanimity was required for all convictions	The State argued prior majority verdicts were valid.	Defendants argued Ramos v. Louisiana required unanimous verdicts for criminal convictions.	The Court modified the appellate decision, recognizing a unanimous verdict on attempted robbery; other issues remained undisturbed.

Key Cases Cited

Pueblo v. Torres Rivera II, 204 D.P.R. 288 (P.R. 2020) (establishes requirement for jury unanimity for criminal convictions in Puerto Rico).
Pueblo en Interés del Menor ESMR, 189 D.P.R. 787 (P.R. 2013) (interpreted felony murder rule under 2004 Penal Code as requiring intent to kill, not just a causal connection.)
Pueblo v. Calderón Laureano, 113 D.P.R. 574 (P.R. 1982) (discussed foreseeability of death arising from violent felonies).
Pueblo v. Ortiz Rodríguez, 100 D.P.R. 972 (P.R. 1972) (addressed evaluation of criminal intent based on surrounding circumstances)