Causation Flashcards
Causation under MPC 2.02(1)(2): To be criminally liable for INTENTIONAL OR KNOWING conduct:
Step 1: The conduct must be the “but for” cause of the result (that is, “but for” the conduct, the result would not have occurred)
AND
Step 2: The result is “within the purpose or contemplation” of the actor OR The result is NOT within the purpose or contemplation of the actor BUT:
a) Different person or property than contemplated or risked.
b) Harm caused less severe than contemplated or risked.
c) Harm is not too remote or accidental to have bearing on liability.
What is a rare exception to the “but for” test under MPC causation?
A defendant may still be the cause of death even though absent his conduct, the death would have occurred anyway.
Consider a victim who is shot by two people at the same time.
Causation under MPC 2.03(1)(a) and (3) for RECKLESS OR NEGLIGENT conduct:
Step 1: The conduct must be the “but for” cause of the result (that is, “but for” the conduct, the result would not have occurred)
AND
Step 2: The result is “within the risk of which the actor is aware or of which he should have been aware” OR The result is NOT “within the risk of which the actor is or should have been aware BUT:
a) Different person or property than contemplated or risked.
b) Harm caused less severe than contemplated or risked.
c) Harm is not too remote or accidental to have bearing on liability.
Hypo 4.3: The Heart Attack
Defendant throws stone at a house. Only the son hears it. He awakens and tells his mother about the rock. She has a heart attack after hearing the news and dies. Did the defendant cause the mother’s death?
In this case, the noise caused by the stone was not heard by the decedent. The stone caused property damage and the noise frightened the son - and there the causal relationship ends. Then defendant did not cause the mothers death.
Hypo 4.4: The Heart Attack Redux
The defendant is robbing a convenience store and the clerk has a heart attack and dies. Defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Can he be convicted?
Likely yes. He was the but for cause of death. It was also something that the defendant should have been aware of.
Describe the flowchart for common law proximate causation and how to analyze common law causation cases.
Step 1: Was the Defendant’s conduct the actual cause of the harm (“but for” test)?
IF NO - NO PROXIMATE CAUSE.
IF YES - Was the result an intended consequence of the act?
IF YES - PROXIMATE CAUSE ESTABLISHED.
IF NO - was the Defendant’s action a substantial factor?
Substantial factor test:
a) What were the number and extent of other factors, if any?
b) Where the forces created by the actor continuous in producing the harm or did they merely create a condition in which independent forces acted?
c) What was the lapse of time, if any, between the act and the harm?
Was the defendant’s action a substantial factor?
IF NO - proximate cause is lacking
IF YES - was the result highly extraordinary?
IF NO - Proximate cause is established.
What are the separate parts of the substantial factors test?
1) What were the number and extent of other contributing factors, if any?
2) Were the forces created by teh actor continuous in producing the harm or did they merely create a condition in which independent forces acted?
3) What was the lapse of time, if any, between the act and the harm.
