Causation Flashcards
What is criminal causation?
Actual causation (but for) + Legal Causation = Criminal causation
it only matters in “result” crimes
Linked to the concept of “personal responsibility for crimes”
What is the legal causation test?
Looks at the D and asks “what did he or should he have reasonably foreseen?”
OR
Looks at the actual causes of the victim’s death and asks how unrelated to the defendant’s acts were those independent occurrences?
What is the basic approach to causation?
- “but for” causation
would the result have happened but for the defendant’s actions? - Is there an intervening cause? (This occurs after the defendant acts.)
- If yes, determine the type:
* Dependent: Was it foreseeable (objective standard) and reasonably related to the defendant’s conduct?
Yes = Legal causation.
* Independent: Was it not foreseeable and not reasonably related?
Yes = No legal causation.
MPC §2.03 Causation for Purpose or Knowledge
A defendant acts purposely and is liable for the result only if the actual result is the same or not too different from what they intended.
The result must not be too remote or accidental in a way that makes it unfair to hold them responsible.
A defendant acts knowingly and is liable if the result that occurs is practically certain from their conduct and is similar to what they contemplated.
the result must not be too remote or accidental to make liability unjust.
MPC §2.03 (3) Causation for Recklessly or Negligently
If a crime requires a result and the defendant acted recklessly or negligently, they are only liable if:
* The actual result is within the risk they consciously disregarded (recklessness)
or
* The actual result is within the risk they should have perceived (negligence)
The result must be a foreseeable consequence of the risk their mental state involved.
What is the common law rule about defendants getting charged with homicide?
They could not be charged unless the victim died within a day and a year
Is it still reasonable to maintain the year-and-a-day rule as a bright-line limit on homicide prosecutions?
Originally adopted to ensure clear causation when forensic science was limited.
Now, with medical advancements, causation can often be determined more accurately.
Retaining the rule can lead to unjust outcomes if a victim dies just after the cutoff.
Most jurisdictions have abolished or modified the rule as outdated and unnecessary.
How do cases focus on whether the intervening cause was “dependent” or “independent”
- Dependent intervening causes are events that follow naturally from the defendant’s actions (e.g., medical treatment for an injury). They do not break the chain of causation unless they are abnormal or unforeseeable.
- Independent intervening causes are unrelated acts or events (e.g., a third party’s actions or natural disasters). They do break the chain of causation unless they are reasonably foreseeable.
How do courts handle concurrent causation?
Two independent acts at (or near) the same time that would each independently cause the result.
Ex: two people shoot the same person at
the same time with the intent to kill and
each bullet inflicts a mortal wound.
Both will be held fully criminally liable.
How does the MPC approach causation differently from the common law?
The MPC focuses on the defendant’s culpability toward the result, rather than rigid cause-in-fact rules.
It compares the actual outcome with what the defendant intended, contemplated, or should have contemplated.
If the result differs from what was intended or foreseen, the appropriate MPC subsections for purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently are applied based on the required mens rea for the offense.
MPC §2.03(2)(a)
If the actual result differs from what the actor knew would occur he is not responsible for the actual result unless:
* A different person or property was harmed or
* The defendant caused a lesser harm than contemplated.
* In either of these instances the defendant is responsible for the harm he causes.
* This is similar to the common law use of
“transferred intent.”
Ex: A intents to shoot B, but shoots C instead, still responsible for shooting C.
MPC §2.03(2)(b)
A defendant is not criminally liable for a result, even though the harm was intended, if it occurred through highly unusual or unexpected events that make the outcome too remote or accidental.
This is a flexible standard that allows the fact-finder to consider moral blameworthiness, fairness, and the overall reasonableness of imposing liability.
Example:
A defendant poisons a victim intending to kill them. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance is struck by lightning and crashes, killing the victim.
Though the defendant intended death, the actual cause was an unexpected and bizarre event, making the result too remote or accidental to impose criminal liability.
what is proof of causation?
The state must show that the defendant acted with the necessary mens rea and committed any required acts or acted with any necessary attendant circumstances, but also that defendant caused the required result (the death of the victim)
Is negligent medical care too remote or accidental so as to break the causal chain?
Negligent medical care is generally foreseeable and does not break the causal chain, but grossly negligent or reckless medical care may be an intervening cause if it is so extreme that it becomes the primary cause of death.
What is the overarching causation analysis?
- Is it a results crime?
- Is there some act/occurrence other than just defendant’s actions? (intervening act)
- a. If no, were defendants actions the direct cause of the result?
- b. If yes, determine whether common law/basic analysis or MPC
Go through each step
