In Oliveras V

In Oliveras v. State , the court held that

A) robbery must be defined as a specific intent offense if it is used to support a charge of felony murder, and several of the jury instructions were erroneous; therefore, the cumulative effect was that Oliveras's convictions should be reversed.
B) there was insufficient evidence that Oliveras agreed to murder Mendez-Rodriguez with Zambada, aided Zambada in the murder, and took property from Mendez-Rodriguez.
C) it would follow the rule of lenity and find that the robbery did not supply intent sufficient to hold Oliveras liable for murder under the felony-murder rule.
D) there was sufficient evidence that Oliveras aided with the murder and robbed the victim to support his convictions, and the court disagreed with Oliveras's assertion that robbery must be defined as a specific intent offense if it is used to support a charge of felony murder.