Causation

Question 1

Causation

Answer 1

In criminal law, causation refers to the relationship between a defendant’s actions and the resulting harm or consequence. In order for a defendant to be held criminally responsible for a result (such as the death of a victim), it must be proven that their actions caused that result.

Question 2

Cause In fact

Answer 2

• AKA actual cause & But for causation
• But for D conduct would this have happened?
• But for had D not engaged in conduct would the result have occurred anyways

Question 3

Proximate Cause (legal causation)

Answer 3

• Proximate cause is about foreseeability
• whether the defendant’s actions were sufficiently connected to the result in a way that it makes sense to hold them legally responsible.
• Evaluates whether there were any intervening factors that break the chain of causation

Question 4

Do you need both but for and PC?

Answer 4

Yes. you need both proximate cause and but for cause to establish criminal liability for a defendant’s actions.

Question 5

Whether a defendant can be held guilty of manslaughter when he inflicted a second injury

Answer 5

No

Question 6

Theory of acceleration

Answer 6

• But for the defendant’s conduct the second injury had victim die at an earlier time
• Result of D conduct that caused victim to die sooner rather than later
• D took away this portion of the victim’s life

Question 7

Can P witness present a hypothetical?

Answer 7

No. The prosecution presented a hypothetical and that is not acceptable because juries are not allowed to speculate

Question 8

Intervening cause

Answer 8

• Happens between the D acts and the victim’s death
• Have to det. whether is is a superseding cause

Question 9

If the intervening cause is not superseding ?

Answer 9

D guilty

Question 10

If the intervening cause is superseding ?

Answer 10

D not guilty

Question 11

PC test – Reas. foreseeable

Answer 11

If not reasonably foreseeable, then it is no longer the D’s fault

Question 12

If the intervening cause is reasonably foreseeable then

Answer 12

If it was then D remains the PC

Question 13

If intervening cause was not foreseeable then

Answer 13

D is not the PC bc chain is broken

Question 14

Can you have PC without but for?

Answer 14

No
Impossible to have a proximate cause w/o being a but for cause

Question 15

Whether a defendant was a cause of death when they caused the initial event that led the victim to be put in that situation

Answer 15

No

Question 16

who determines foreseeability of intervening cause?

Answer 16

Factual determination on the part of the jury as to reasonable foreseeability or not

Question 17

Apparent safety doctrine

Answer 17

• if someone is apparently safe (end of the story)
  If D engages in conduct that puts victim in vulnerable position but they are safe at time before death then the chain of liabiluty is broken
  -If victim becomes unsafe after being safe, the conduct is no longer connected to the D’s conduct
• Victim becoming unsafe supersedes the D’s cause
• Therefore D not guilty because victim supersedes

Question 18

Voluntary human intervention

Answer 18

• More possible to be relieved of criminal responsibility
• When a doctor comes in and kills the patient
• Not reasonably foreseeable = superseding