 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Marlin11/30/2004
usation, that is, whether there was a causal connection between defendant's acts and the victim's injuries. While he is correct that in certain situations the acts or failures of a victim or a third party may negate causation, this is not one of them.
For crimes committed under circumstances such as this, the defendant may only be found guilty if it can be said there is a causal connection between his conduct and the harm suffered by the victim. To establish this causal connection and for criminal liability to attach, the evidence must show that defendant's conduct was both the actual and the legal, or proximate, cause of the death or injuries. Once that has been shown, the actions or failings of the victims or third parties are of no consequence. (LaFave, supra, § 6.4(a), pp. 465-466.)
*7 Professor LaFave explains: "[T]his ordinarily means (1) that the defendant's conduct must be the 'but-for' cause (sometimes called the 'cause in fact') of the forbidden result (the word 'cause' in the phrase 'legal cause' or 'proximate cause'), and in addition (2) that the forbidden result which actually occurs must be enough similar to, and occur in a manner enough similar to, the result or manner ... which [defendant's] reckless or negligent conducted created a risk of happening ... that the defendant may fairly be held responsible for the actual result even though it does differ or happens in a different way from the ... hazarded result (the word 'legal' or 'proximate' in the phrase 'legal cause' or 'proximate cause')." (LaFave, supra, § 6.4(a), p. 466.)
These concepts underlie California criminal law. Thus, pertinent CALJIC instructions defendant would have faced had he gone to trial, based on cases interpreting the concepts we have discussed above, speak to these issues.
Specifically, CALJIC No. 8.55 provides: "To constitute [murder] [or] [manslaughter] there must be, in addition to the death of a human being, an unlawful act which was a cause of that death."
CALJIC No. 3.40 says: "[To constitute the crime of ______ there must be in addition to the (result of the crime ) an unlawful [act][or] [omission] which was a cause of that (result of the crime ).]
"The criminal law has its own particular way of defining cause. A cause of the (result of the crime ) is an [act][or] [omission] that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural and probable consequence of the [act][or] [omission] the (result of the crime ) and without which the (result of the crime ) would not occur."
Finally, CALJIC No. 3.41 says: "There may be more than one cause of the (result of the crime ). When the conduct of two or more persons contributes concurrently as a cause of the (result of the crime ), the conduct of each is a cause of the (result of the crime ) if that conduct was also a substantial factor contributing to the result. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of the (result of the crime ) and acted with another cause to produce the (result of the crime ).
"[If you find that the defendant's conduct was a cause of (injury, death, etc.) to another person, then it is no defense that the conduct of some other person[, even the [injured][deceased] person,] contributed to the (injury, death, etc.).]"
The question then is whether defendant's actions were both the actual cause and a legal or proximate cause of the injuries (and the death) that were the result of those actions. We hold they were. Even assuming that Jeanette A. was speeding and inattentive and the brakes on her automobile experienced brake fade, it is apparent from this record that the accident would not have occurred but for defendant losing control of his car due to his intoxication and thereafter driving into Jeanette A.'s lane of traffic. Had he not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|