Causation

Question 1

Impossibility

Answer 1

It is no defenses that under the attendant circumstances the crime was factually or legally impossible of commission if such crime could have occurred had the attendant circumstances been as person believed them to be

example: shoot at a dead man unsure if he is dead = attempted murder

Question 2

Cause in Fact

Actual Cause

Answer 2

But for D’s conduct would not have occurred

Exception: for concurrent causation since but for analysis fails

• Alone does not support imposition of criminal liability – must prove proximate cause too
• Selects candidates for proximate cause analysis

Question 3

Proximate Cause

Legal Cause

Answer 3

V’s injury is “DIRECT and NATURAL” result of D’s actions

Policy: legal construct to prevent imposition of criminal liability when result is seen as too remote

Question 4

Intervening Acts

Proximate Cause

Answer 4

• Don’t break causal link between D’s conduct and result unless they are superseding
• An intervening act is a COINCIDENCE when D merely out V in certain place at certain time
• – Coincidence breaks chain
• If intervening act is a RESPONSE to D’s conduct and is FORESEEABLE then D then D liable
• Refusal of medical treatment merely allows natural course of D’s consequences to carry out

Question 5

Superseding Cause

Proximate Cause

Answer 5

Test: Whether intervening act was REASONABLY FORESEEABLE on objective std.

Ordinary medical negligence is foreseeable but GROSS medical negligence is not

Question 6

Concurrent Causation

Answer 6

two individual actors whose acts and intended acts would satisfy all elements of a crime INDEPENDENT of one another and the intended result would have occurred regardless of the actions of the other individuals