The second degree felony-murder rule has been criticized and, indeed, described as disfavored. (E.g., Patterson, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 621.) Courts have repeatedly stated, as recently as 2005, that the rule '`'deserves no extension beyond its required application.''' (People v. Howard, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1135.) For these reasons, although the second degree felony-murder rule originally applied to all felonies (People v. Doyell, supra, 48 Cal. at pp. 94-95; Pike, What Is Second Degree Murder in California?, supra, 9 So.Cal. L.Rev. at pp. 118-119), courts have subsequently restricted its scope in at least two respects to ameliorate its perceived harshness.
First, '[i]n People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892], the court restricted the felonies that could support a conviction of second degree murder, based upon a felony-murder theory, to those felonies that are `inherently dangerous to human life.'' (Hansen, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 308.) Whether a felony is inherently dangerous is determined from the elements of the felony in the abstract, not the particular facts. (Patterson, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 621.) Section 246 makes it a felony to 'maliciously ...