Causation & Defenses of Justification

Causation

Two Types of Causation

  • "But For" Cause / Cause in Fact: The result would not have happened if the act had not been committed.

    • State v. Atkinson (NC 1979):

      • Facts: The defendant beat the victim severely during a robbery.

      • Victim's bad heart contributed to the death; he was described as a "walking bombshell."

      • Held: The defendant is liable if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death.

      • The defendant's assault was a direct cause of death, even though the victim may not have died without their pre-existing heart condition.

    • Cox v. State (Arkansas):

      • Rule: Where there are concurrent causes of death, conduct that hastens or contributes to a person’s death is considered a cause of death.

  • Proximate Cause: Looks at the foreseeability of the act causing the end result.

Hypothetical Examples

  • Hypo 1: David hands Victor a sheet of paper, and Victor gets a paper cut during the transfer. The paper cut gets infected, leading to sepsis and Victor's death.

  • Hypo 2: David punches Victor in the back due to a grudge. Victor goes to the hospital. While driving to the hospital, Victor is killed in a car accident caused by another driver running a red light.

Case Law on Causation

  • Commonwealth v. Soto:

    • Two people shot the victim.

    • Defendant 1 shot the victim in the upper body.

    • Defendant 2 returned with ammunition and shot the victim three times in the head.

    • Held: To be a direct cause of death, the action must be a substantial (but not necessarily the sole) cause of death.

  • People v. Armitage:

    • Rule: The unreflective and predictable act of the victim trying to escape the peril caused by the defendant did not break the causal connection between the drunken boating and the victim’s death.

    • Proximate cause is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the death, and without which the death would not have occurred.

  • State v. Cox:

    • Rule: There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.

    • The prosecution must prove only that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause.

    • Even if the victim was negligent, to relieve the defendant of liability, that negligence must break the causal chain of the defendant’s negligence.

  • State v. Pelham:

    • Rule: Removing the victim from life support does not break the causal connection.

    • Proximate cause considers fairness and culpability assessment.

    • The question is: Did intervening causes or unforeseen conditions lead to death, such that it would be unjust to hold the defendant liable?

    • An "independent intervening cause" breaks the chain and relieves the defendant of guilt.

  • State v. Buckley:

    • Rule: Failure of the defendant’s passenger to wear a seatbelt does not break the causal connection.

    • Failure to wear a seatbelt is irrelevant to both "but for" and "proximate" causation.

Defenses of Justification

Self-Defense

  • Common Law: If the victim or family is attacked, one can meet force with force in defense but must not exceed the level of force needed to defend (i.e., cannot use excessive force).

  • Current Law: Similar elements:

    • Actual and reasonable (subjective and objective) belief in the need to defend.

    • Imminent threat.

    • Use of reasonable force to defend.

    • To counter unlawful harm (i.e., cannot be the initial aggressor).

Case Law on Self-Defense

  • People v. Goetz:

    • Rule: New York statute permits force in self-defense or defense of others when and to the extent the defendant reasonably believes it is necessary to defend from what they reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force.

    • Cannot use deadly force unless the defendant reasonably believes the other person is about to use deadly force or reasonably believes the person is committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, forcible rape/sodomy, or robbery.

  • Imperfect Self-Defense:

    • Honest (actual, subjective) but unreasonable (objective standard) belief in the need to defend negates malice aforethought, so the offense is reduced from murder (or attempted murder) to voluntary manslaughter (or attempted voluntary manslaughter).

  • State v. Stewart:

    • Rule: Before a person may use deadly force, it must reasonably appear that the defendant’s life is in imminent danger.

    • The defendant may not attack or kill due to fear of injury at a time in the future.

    • The perceived imminent danger had to occur in the present time.

  • People v. Williams (Use of Reasonable Force):

    • Rule: A belief may be reasonable even if mistaken.

    • Deadly force is justified if the threatened force would cause death or great bodily injury (GBI) or is a forcible felony.

  • Bellcourt v. State (To Counter Unlawful Harm):

    • Rule: An aggressor in an incident has no right to claim self-defense unless they actually and in good faith withdraw from the conflict and communicate that withdrawal, expressly or impliedly, to their intended victim.

Hypothetical Examples Related to Self-Defense

  • Hypo 3: David argues with Victor, who threatens to kill David and his family on Friday with an AK-47. On Wednesday, David goes to Victor’s house and shoots him.

  • Hypo 4: David and Victor, of similar stature, argue. Victor threatens to punch David and approaches with a raised fist. David pulls out a knife and stabs Victor.

  • Hypo 5: David punches Victor, who responds with three punches. David continues punching Victor until he is unconscious.

  • Hypo 6: Victor approaches David in anger with a pool noodle, threatening him. David believes the pool noodle attack may cause death or great bodily injury and shoots Victor.

Duty to Retreat

  • The Model Penal Code has a general duty to retreat.

  • Most states do not have a duty to retreat.

  • California: The defendant is not required to retreat; they are entitled to stand their ground, even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

  • People v. Williams (Duty to Retreat):

    • Rule: If the defendent is where he has a lawful right to be, he has a right to stand his ground.

Defense of Property

  • People v. Ceballos:

    • Rule: A person may be criminally liable for setting up a deadly mechanical device that kills or injures a person.

    • Deadly force may be used when resisting an attempt to murder, commit a felony, or inflict GBI.

    • Deadly force may be used in defense of habitation against one who manifestly intends, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony.

    • However, this is limited to an “atrocious” crime committed by force – murder, mayhem, rape, robbery, and sometimes burglary if it reasonably creates fear of GBI.

Consent

  • Generally, consent is not a defense because crimes are public offenses.

  • The state has an interest in protecting people from harm.

  • If consent is an element of an offense, then consent is a defense.

  • Consent is also a defense to occupations/sports.

Hazing

  • Hazing is an initiation process that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or physically endangers persons who desire membership in an organization.

  • Consent is not a defense to hazing.

  • PC 245.6 – California Hazing Law.