Chapter 6 - Causation

Question 1

Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact)

Answer 1

Factual Cause

Question 2

Traditional “But For” Test

Answer 2

the result would not have occurred “but for” D’s conduct

Question 3

“Substantial Factor” Test

Answer 3

• rarely used; only when there are multiple independent acts EACH could be sufficient to bring about the result
• • if the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the result

Question 4

Oxendine v. State

Answer 4

Evidence of causation must be sufficient to est. that conduct caused/accelerated the result
– State needed to look carefully at statute and had to prove statutory requirements BRD.

Question 5

MPC 2.03(1)

Answer 5

Conduct causes a result when

1) it is actual case AND
2) it is proximate cause

Question 6

Legal Cause (Proximate Cause)

Answer 6

Determination of whether this set of circumstances is connected enough to impose liability
–Usually comes up when an intervening force/cause comes between D’s conduct and the harm

Question 7

Intervening Causes

Answer 7

A cause that takes place after the defendant acted by before the prohibited result occurred

Ex. Act of God, Act of Independent third party (accel, aggravate, unexpected manner), act by victim or omission by victim/other

Question 8

Concurrent Causation

Answer 8

When two actors engage in conduct which causes as result, either of which would have caused the result alone, BOTH ARE LIABLE

Question 9

(Conduct OR Conduct and Result?)

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally causes bodily injury to another.

Answer 9

Conduct and Result Crime

- General Intent

Question 10

A person commits an offense if he knowingly operates another’s vehicle without the effective consent of the owner.

Answer 10

Conduct

-General Intent

Question 11

A person commits an offense if he intentionally abducts another person with the intent to hold him for ransom

Answer 11

Conduct

-Specific Intent

Question 12

A person commits an offense if he knowingly causes the penetration of the sexual organ of another person by any means without that person’s permission.

Answer 12

Conduct and Result

• General Intent

Question 13

A person commits an offense if he issues a check knowing the issuer does not have sufficient funds for payment of the check

Answer 13

Conduct

• specific intent

Question 14

A person commits an offense if, with the intent to coerce a child to participate in a criminal street gang, the person causes bodily injury to the child.

Answer 14

Conduct and result

• Specific Intent

Question 15

A person commits an offense if, with the intent to coerce a child to participate in a criminal street gang, the person causes bodily injury to the child.

Answer 15

Conduct and result

• Specific Intent

Question 16

De Minimus Contribution

Answer 16

Was D’s act a substantial cause in comparison to intervening cause(s)?

– Defendant will be relieved of liability for harm if his causal responsibility is insubstantial in comparison to that of the intervening cause.

**People v. Rideout

Question 17

Responsive (Dependent) Intervening Cause [Foreseeability]

Answer 17

Could responsive intervening act have been expected/foreseen?

– The response doe not cut off liability unless it is so unusual that it borders on bizarre.

Question 18

Coincidental (Independent) Intervening Cause [Foreseeability]

Answer 18

Could intervening act, not in response to D’s act, have been foreseen or was it just coincidental?

– Coincidental intervening cause relieves original wrongdoer UNLESS it is foreseeable.

Question 19

Intended Consequences Doctrine (D’s Mens Rea)

Answer 19

Did D’s intended result still occur even w/ intervening act(s)?

– An intended consequence is generally not so remote as to cut off D’s criminal liability.

Question 20

Apparent Safety Doctrine (Dangerous Forces that Come to Rest)

Answer 20

Did the danger of the original harm end safely prior to the harm being committed by an intervening act?

–When D’s active force comes to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer.

** People v. Rideout

Question 21

Voluntary Human Intervention

Answer 21

Did another (even the victim) intervene freely, deliberately, and informed?

– D is more likely to be relieved of criminal liability where another’s intervention is free, deliberate, and informed.

**Velazquez

Question 22

Omission

Answer 22

– An omission by an intervening actor, will not cut off liability of the initial actor – The second actor may be liable as well.

Question 23

Velasquez v. State

Answer 23

Voluntary Human Interaction

–Victim’s own reckless actions superseded D’s wrongful conduct.

Question 24

State v. Rose

Answer 24

No proof BRD that initial hit or dragging were immediate cause of death
– where evidence is insufficient to establish guilt BRD, the court must grant D’s motion for a directed verdict.

Question 25

People v. Rideout

Answer 25

De Minimus Contribution/ Apparent Safety Doctrine

– For D’s conduct to be a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be a direct and natural result of D’s actions – intervening causes may supersede D’s actions

Question 26

Proximate Cause Purposefully/Knowingly Causing a Result

Answer 26

MPC 2.03 (2)

• If the actual result is within the purpose or contemplation of the actor
• BUT if the actual result and contemplated results differ, the requirement is met if
  A) result differed as to person/property injured or if amount of harm contemplated was higher OR
  B) result was what was contemplated and is “not too remote… to have a bearing on actor’s liability or gravity of his offense.”

Question 27

Proximate Cause Recklessly/Negligently Causing a Result

Answer 27

MPC 2.03 (3)

If the actual result if the probable result, the requirement is met

-BUT if the actual result and probable result differ, the requirement is met if
A) probable result differed only as to person/property at risk or if amount of harm contemplated was higher OR
B) result was what was probable and is “not too remote…”

Question 28

Proximate Cause Absolute Liability

Answer 28

MPC 2.03 (4)

When result is required to impose absolute liability, that element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct.