CAUSATION
1. ACTUAL CAUSE
Actual cause – but for the acts of the defendant, would the victim have died? Would
the result have happened if the defendant had not acted as s/he did?
A. MPC 2.03(1)(a): Conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for
which the result in question would not have occurred [when it occurred]
B. COMMON LAW: but for defendant’s voluntary acts or omissions, would the
harm have occurred when it did?
i.
But for Cause – in-fact
ii.
Possible Theories of Joint Liability
§
(acceleration v. aggravation)
Example: D1 injures victim who will die in a relatively short time;
then D2 inflicts fatal injury that causes victim to die immediately
Holds a person criminally liable for causing a death at a particular
point in time before the victim would have died anyway;
Requires specific proof of when the victim would have died
anyway to establish D1’s guilt, and then how D2’s conduct caused
the otherwise inevitable death to occur earlier.
§
Concurrent sufficient causes of substantial factor
Example: 2 people beat the victim, who dies from the blows; both can
be charged under this doctrine if the blows of each could have caused
the death
“A person is criminally liable if the result would not have occurred
but for his conduct, operating either alone of concurrently with
another cause, unless the concurrent cause was sufficient to the
produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.”
§
Accomplices
§
Omission
2. PROXIMATE CAUSE
A. COMMON LAW
i.
Was defendant’s conduct the legal cause of the death?
ii.
Intervening Causes
iii.
§
Look at all causal candidates that meet the but-for test and decide
which ones should be criminally liable
§
Draw a link between defendant’s voluntary act and social harm. Did
anything happen between these events? If so, there is a proximate
cause issue.
Sole Substantial Cause
§
iv.
2
If the intervening cause is the sole substantial cause of the death and or
injuries, then proximate cause is met.
Misc. Rules
§
In general, for PC to exist, the manner of death should be a foreseeable
result of the defendant’s acts.
§
If a victim is already ill or death is likely to occur, the victim’s
condition does not preclude finding causation; it is enough that the
defendant’s action hasten the victim’s death.
§
Mere passage of time between the defendant’s acts and the end result
does not preclude finding causation.
§
At common law, courts followed the year and a day rule. If the def.
died later than a year and a day from the act, proximate causation was
considered broken.
§
Regarding med. Treatment, it is foreseeable that death can occur due
to medical treatment necessitated by the defendant’s acts, and there is
causation.
§
Medical treatment breaks the chain of causation only if it is grossly
negligent unforeseeable conduct.
§
Responsive Intervening Causes: a force that comes into existence as a
response to the defendant’s conduct. Normally, it is responsive, law
holds the initial party responsible, unless responsive force is totally
bizarre. (medical treatment – “grossly negligent”)
§
Coincidental Intervening Cause - the force is independent of D’s
conduct, but D put victim in a position to be harmed. D (original
wrongdoer) is not responsible unless that consequence was reasonably
foreseeable.
v.
vi.
3
Hypos: Responsive v. Coincidental Intervening Cause:
§
Hypo 1a: D shoots victim and victim is taken to the hospital, where doctor
botches operation to remove bullet, and victim dies as a result.
§
responsive intervening causes
§
Answer: D criminally liable
§
Hypo 1b: same as above, but doctor strangles victim on operating table,
causing victim to die
§
Answer: responsive intervening cause, but bizarre. D not criminally liable
§
Hypo 2: D punches victim in face, resulting in fat lip. Victim goes to
doctor to get it checked out; on the way is struck by lightning and killed.
§
Answer: Coincidental intervening cause – not criminally liable
Intentional Crime, w/ unintended manner of harm
§
Direct Cause
§
If the only difference between what D intended and the result is the
precise nature of the injury (ex: aims for the heart, but shoots in the head),
proximate cause is met.
§
Pre-existing Weakness
§
The D takes the V as is. If D’s act is worsened by pre-existing weakness
of V, D has caused the end result.
§
Intervening Cause
§
Did a subsequent event become a superseding cause that breaks the chain
of causation between the defendant’s act and the end result?
§
One way to look at this:
§
Was the intervening act a coincidence or was it a response to the
defendant’s prior actions?
§
Coincidence – D shot at V; V ran away from D and was struck by
lightning. (Likely breaks chain of causation)
§
Response – D shot at V and hit V; in attempting to administer medical
care, the EMT gives V the wrong medicine, causing his death. (Unlikely
to break chain of causation – unless abnormal)
§
4 general categories of potential intervening acts:
› Acts of the Victim
› Acts of a Third Person
› Acts of the Defendant
› Non-Human Acts
4