Causation
To prove causation:
Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actus reus was the actual AND legal (proximate) cause of the harm
Actual Causation (#1 Test)
But-For test:
But-For the actus reus, the harm would not have happened.
(That particular actus reus was necessary for the harm to occur.)
It works when multiple causes are necessary for the result.
Substantial Factor Test (#2 Test)
Used when two or more independent acts are each sufficient to cause the result, so the but-for test fails.
2 individuals independently act to cause the same harm.
*Each Individual actus reus is ALONE enough to cause the harm.
Acceleration (# 3 Test)
A defendant is an actual cause if their conduct accelerates the victim’s death, even if the victim would have died anyway.
*Harm has already occurred.
*Simply aggravating or contributing to harm is not enough to establish causation unless the defendant’s conduct actually caused or accelerated the result.
Oxendine v. State
ODF: Mom pushes kid causing tear in intestines. Kid called Dad about pain. Dad saw bruises then beat kid. Neighbor heard screaming. Kid died on way to hospital.
Manslaughter: Reckless causes the death of another person
Issue: D aware of substantial & unjustified risk when committing act of beating?
*1) Actus reas: Beating kid
*2) Mens rea: Reckless (substantial & unjustified risk)
Circumstantial Evidence: Dad got call from kid about pain, neighbor heard sounds, Dad saw bruises on kid, Dad took kid to hospital, aware of the previous hitting.
Unjustified because it was a kid.
3) Causation: Whether D’s actus reas accelerate the kid’s death?
No, Govt had no sufficient evidence on if second injury sped/accelerated death
Ended up charging for assault: but-for beating kid, the harm wouldn’t have happened
Preemptive cause
A preemptive cause occurs when a second independent act causes the result before the first act can take effect.
Relationship Between But-For, Substantial Factor, and Acceleration (Actual Causation)
*But-for causation: Used when the defendant’s act is necessary for the result.
*Substantial factor / Acceleration: Used when but-for fails, usually because multiple sufficient causes exist.
*You cannot have both but-for causation and substantial factor/acceleration for the same act.
*You can have substantial factor + acceleration together when multiple acts each contribute and one speeds up the result.
Proximate Causation
The harm must be the direct and natural result of the defendant’s actions.
Intervening Cause
A new event that occurs after the defendant’s act and contributes to the harm. (DOES NOT BREAK THE CHAIN) (Ex. Normal Medical malpractice)
Superseding Cause
An unforeseeable intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation, relieving the defendant from liability.
An intervening cause is Superseding Cause if:
*It is not reasonably foreseeable (Ex. Doctor stabs the patient)
*Apparent Safety Doctrine: If the victim reaches a place of apparent safety after the defendant’s act, and then voluntarily returns to the danger, the later harm is considered a superseding cause.
*Free and Deliberate choice of the victim: Free and Deliberate choice of the victim cuts against the finding that the defendant’s action was the proximate cause of the harm.
(Factor analysis, not a elemental analysis)
People v. Rideout
ODF: Rideout endangered Keiser by causing Reichelt’s car to spin out to the center of the road but Keiser reached a place of apparent safety at the side of the road. Keiser then willingly went back onto the road, at which point he was hit by the oncoming car.
Holding: Not proximate cause, was a superseding event by apparent safety doctrine
Actus reas: Yes, act of D hitting another car
▪ Causation: But for; Yes, must be to analyze proximate cause
▪ Not foreseeable for K to go back into road after safety, was superseding cause.
* Counter: Could be foreseeable one would go check on car after accident
▪ K reached apparent safety and then went back into danger of road, superseding.
(Court said proximate causation failed here)
Velazquez v. State
ODF: D & A drag racing. Race ends. A, drunk, keeps racing, crash & died. D crash, survive
Holding: D was actual cause (but for) but not proximate cause for A’s death. Not liable.
▪ Foreseeability: Unforeseeable he would crash/keep going after the race ended
▪ Apparent safety doctrine: put self-back in dangerous situation when race ended
▪ Free and Deliberate choice: It was his own choice to participate & keep going
State v. Rose
ODF: D hit E with car & drove away. E’s body was lost under car so no help, E died.
2 Scenarios: Either the victim died due to the hit or by the driving away.
Unclear evidence here
Commonwealth v. Carter
ODF: she encouraged the victim to kill himself in the car.
Factors:
*Actus Reus: By encouraging him to kill himself she put him in a risk of harm. Therefore duty was created. She had a duty to make sure he didn’t enter the car again.
- Roy arguably caused the dangerous situation himself—until he got out of the truck and abandoned the attempt, similar to his other attempts. That act broke the chain of causation.
*Only Carter’s statements caused Roy to get back and stay inside the truck. Carter failed to do anything to intervene as she listened to Roy cough, choke, and die. That failure resulted in his death.
State v. Rose (1st Scenario)
*Can Rose be guilty of manslaughter based on hitting the victim with the car?
*Actus Reus:
Driving and hitting the victim.
*Mens Rea:
❌ No. The court said there was no evidence of criminal negligence when the collision occurred.
*Actual Cause:
✔ Yes. But for Rose hitting the victim, the victim would not have died.
*Proximate Cause:
✔ Yes. The impact was the direct and natural cause of death.
Result:
❌ No manslaughter because there was no culpable mental state at the time of the collision.
State v. Rose (2ns Scenario)
Can Rose be guilty of manslaughter based on failing to stop and help after hitting the victim?
*Actus Reus:
Omission with a duty. Rose created the danger and had a duty to help but drove away.
*Mens Rea:
✔ Yes. Leaving someone injured could be criminal negligence.
*Proximate Cause:
Not reached because actual causation failed. (preempted by the D himself).
Result:
❌ No manslaughter because the prosecution could not prove the victim was alive when Rose failed to help.
If the victim may already be dead, the omission cannot be the cause of death.
