 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Doyle11/18/2003
ts own natural and continuous sequence which interrupts, breaks, displaces or supersedes the consequences of the defendant's conduct. Under such circumstances, the conduct of the second person not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant would be the sole proximate cause of the killing.
The burden is not on the defendant to prove that his conduct was insulated by that of another. Rather, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death.
The State also requested the trial court to instruct the jury regarding a continuous transaction and proximate cause. The court's instruction to the jury read as follows:
Second, that while committing or attempting to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, the defendant killed the victim. A killing is committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony for purposes of the felony murder rule where there is no break in the chain of events leading from the initial felony to the act causing death, so that the killing is part of a series of incidents which form one continuous transaction.
And third, that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death. A proximate cause is a real cause, a cause without which the victim's death would not have occurred. The defendant's act need not have been the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it combined with some other cause acting at the time which, in combination with it, caused the death of the victim.
The trial court is required to frame its instructions with the particularity that is necessary to enable the jury to understand and apply the law to the evidence bearing upon the elements of the crime charged. State v. Weddington, 329 N.C. 202, 210, 404 S.E.2d 671, 677 (1991). To warrant a conviction for homicide, the State must establish that the act of the accused was a proximate cause of the death. See State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844 (1952). Defendant's actions need not be the sole and only proximate cause of the victim's death to be found criminally liable. State v. Hollingsworth, 77 N.C. App. 36, 39, 334 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1985). A showing that the defendant's actions were one of the proximate causes is sufficient. Id. To insulate the defendant from criminal liability, the negligence of another must be such as to break the causal chain of defendant's actions. See State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159, 538 S.E.2d 917 (2000).
The evidence shows that the patrolman's deployment of stop sticks did not entirely break the chain of events. Defendant's actions of robbing Cocke and leading the police on a high speed chase along the Interstate was a proximate cause of the collision and victim's death. The trial court's instructions were adequate to inform the jury on the issue of proximate cause and on the issue of continuous transaction.
Presuming, without deciding, that a third party's acts must be reasonably foreseeable to a criminal defendant, the evidence clearly shows that the deployment of the stop sticks by the patrolman was reasonably foreseeable to a defendant who refused to stop after police activated their lights and sirens and who accelerated and led the police on a high speed chase along the Interstate towards the Tennessee border. Defendant testified that he was aware from watching television and movies that stop sticks are deployed to apprehend criminals who are fleeing from pursuing police officers. This testimony tends to show defendant did or could foresee that the police officers might use this tactic to apprehend him. The trial court did not err by refusing defendant's requested jury instruction. Defendant'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|