M4: Causation Flashcards
X intentionally stabs V in the chest. V will die from loss of blood in 15 minutes. Simultaneously, D intentionally shoots V in the leg. V would not die from this wound by itself. V dies in 10 minutes.
Who is the actual cause of V’s death? How would these cases be resolved under MPC 2.03(1)?
Actual cause: “a” cause of the accident, not necessarily “the” cause of the accident”
X’s stab wound was the cause of death (loss of blood in 15 minutes). D’s shooting would likely be a factual cause because it assisted in the loss of blood, which was the cause of V’s death.
2.03(1): not satisfied
D1 and D2 met V at a bar. V had been drinking heavily. V began asking other patrons for a ride home around 9 pm. D1 and D2 decided to rob V and offered him a ride. V accepted.
After robbing V in the car and forcing him to remove his boots, D1 and D2 abandoned V by the side of an unlit, rural two-lane highway. They also left his boots and jacket on the shoulder, but not his glasses, which remained in the car with D1 and D2. The night was cold and blowing snow, but otherwise clear. The road was dry.
B was driving his pickup truck at 50 MPH, 10 miles over the speed limit in the northbound lane. A car in the southbound lane passed B and flashes its lights. B saw V sitting in the middle of the northbound lane with his hands in the air. B “went into a kind of shock” and failed to apply his brakes. B struck and killed V.
D1 and D2 were charged with second-degree murder inasmuch as they were aware that their actions create an extreme risk of death to V. Did D1 and D2 proximately cause V’s death?
B, D1 and D2 = factual cause
D1 and D2 = proximate cause
+ Foreseeable = leaving V on the side of the road, drunk and without their glasses, coat or boots, in the middle of a two-lane highway at night
+ Free choice = no, because D1 and D2 robbed V and he was not there willingly. V may have been in the middle of the road with the intent to flag down a car and get help, but we don’t know how well he can see without his glasses and it sounds like he was also very drunk.
Can an omission ever function as a superseding intervening cause?
No matter how unforeseeable an omission may be, a “negative act” will not supersede an earlier “positive act.” A nothing will not supersede something.
D intends to shoot and kill her spouse, V, as soon as V arrives home. Incorrectly believing that the gun in still loaded, D tests the trigger by pulling it. As she does, V unexpectedly enters the house and is struck + killed by the bullet.
Based on these facts, is the requisite motivational occurrence present?
No, the motivational concurrence is missing.
Even though D had the intent to kill V as she voluntarily performed the act that caused the death (temporal concurrence existed), the mens rea was not the actuating force behind the conduct.
Pulling the trigger (actus reus) was intended as a preparatory act and was not done in order to give effect to the desire to kill.
D breaks into and enter V’s home at night in order to escape the cold. After she enters, D1 decides to steal V1’s property. D1 is prosecuted for burglary, defined as “breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein.”
Is D guilty of burglary?
What if D killed V after breaking in? Would she be guilty of murder?
No to burglary, because the specific intent of the offense (intent to commit a felony therein) arose after the occurrence of the voluntary acts that caused the social harm of burglary (breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night).
No to murder, if the intent to commit the felony (mens rea for felony-murder) is an afterthought.
D intends to kill V, plans the killing, but never gets an opportunity to execute the plan. Later, D changes her mind, gives up the idea of killing V, then they become friends.
D and V go hunting, during which time D innocently (non-negligently) kills V.
Is D guilty of criminal homicide?
No, because the mens rea and actus reus were not concurrent in time. There was no culpable state of mind when D killed V.
If D drives his car in a negligent manner, causing the death of V (passenger) in D’s car, would V’s failure to wear a seat belt absolve D from liability of V’s death?
Although V’s failure to wear a seatbelt is causally related to his own death, D will still be liable for causing the death. Omissions will rarely supercede an earlier, operative wrongful act.
Even if the intervening actor has a duty to act. Ex: Father’s failure to intervene and stop a stranger from beating his child will not absolve the attacker for the ensuing homicide. But the father may also be responsible, independently, for the death on the basis of omission principles.
True or false: In MPC jurisdiction, to be guilty of an an offense, a person’s conduct must cause the prohibited result.
True. MPC uses the “but for” rule with actual cause.
MPC: Cause is “an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred.”
If D1 and D2 independently inflict immediately lethal wounds on V, how would a MPC jurisdiction determine the cause of the death?
MPC says “result in question” should be described as “death from two mortal wounds”. Thus, the jury would determine whether “but for D1 and D1’s act, the result (death by two mortal wounds) would have occurred when it did”
Each party is a but for cause of the result, and a court need not apply “substantial factor test”
True or false: MPC treats matters of proximate cause just the same as common law.
False. MPC treats matters of of proximate cause as issues relating to actor’s culpability.
If D attempts to rob a bank and the bank teller was accidentally electrocuted pressing the burglar alarm switch, would D be liable for the death in a MPC jurisdiction?
No, under MPC, because the actual result was not a probable consequences of robbing a bank.
For an offense containing no culpability element, the Code provides that causation is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct.
True or false: In common law jurisdictions, prosecution must prove actual cause beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the only element they need to prove to find a defendant guilty?
False. Actus Reus + Actual Cause + Proximate cause + Mens Rea = all are required, separate elements
D has a minor argument with her husband V. V. is upset about the argument, decides to leave the house. He walks across the street and while doing so, he is struck and killed by an automobile driven by X.
Is D an actual cause of V’s death? Can D be convicted of a crime pertaining to V’s death?
Yes, D is the actual cause of V’s death. But for D having the argument with V, V would not have crossed the street at that moment and not been struck by a car.
D would probably not be convicted of a crime pertaining to V’s death for a few reasons.
1) D was not the sole cause of the harm - X played a factor and so did V. Just because you have actual cause doesn’t mean you are responsible.
2) D didn’t have a culpable state of mind (mens rea) regarding V’s death.
This is a case of but-for causation without mens rea.
D1 intends to kill V and shoots V but misses him. Simultaneously, D2 shoots V (independently and accidentally) in the heart. V dies instantly.
Is D1 legally responsible for V’s death?
D1 is not legally responsible for D’s death because he had mens rea but not causation.
D2 may be charged with homicide but may also be acquitted for lack of mens rea.
D1 stabs V in the stomach. Simultaneously and independently, D2 shoots V three times in the head, killing him instantly.
Is D1 casually linked to V’s death?
It depends on more facts.
Obstructed cause:
If a coroner testifies that the wound inflicted by D1 did not contribute to V’s death, the bullets to the head by D2 would have killed V instantly even without a stomach wound –> D1 did not contribute to V’s death.
D1 attempted to kill V but his efforts were obstructed by a separate force.
