FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

    55.1    Prosecution Must Prove Causation Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

RATIONALE: Without specific instruction the jury may not understand that each element of causation must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Causation often includes several requirements. For example, it must be shown that the defendant's acts were both the cause in fact of the harm and that the harm was foreseeable. (See e.g., NEW JERSEY MODEL JURY CHARGES - CRIMINAL Chap. 11 [Murder-Offenses Involving Danger to the Person] 5/20/91 pp. 3-4, ¶ 4-6 (New Jersey ICLE 4th ed. 1997).) Hence, it may be appropriate to inform the jury that each of these requirements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt since, as with elements of the charge, the failure to prove any necessary requirement for causation requires that a verdict of not guilty be returned. (See also McCord v. State (NV 1991) 807 P2d 1378, 1379.)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.3].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

    The prosecution is required to prove all elements of causation beyond a reasonable doubt.  If any element of causation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt you must find the defendant not guilty.

[See McCord v. State (NV 1991) 807 P2d 1378, 1379.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: "When 'divergent factual versions give rise to different theories of causation, the trial court should provide the jury with appropriate instructions, depending on which version it chooses to accept." (State v. Martin (NJ 1990) 573 A2d 1359, 1367; see also State v. Munoz (CT 1995) 659 A2d 683, 691-93 [when there is an intervening cause issue instruction limited to the "substantial factor" language may be insufficient].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: The victim's negligence may be relevant on the question whether the defendant was himself guilty of criminal negligence and, if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the victim's injury.  (See FORECITE National™ 55.4 [Negligent Homicide: Defendant’s Right To Instruction That Accident Was Caused By The Other Person’s Negligence]; see also FORECITE National™ 55.6 [Intervening Cause: Gross Negligence Or Intentional Wrongdoing Of Medical Care Personnel Negates Defendant’s Liability].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: In Williams v. State (OK 1976) 554 P2d 842, 847, it was held to be reversible error to refuse to permit the defendant to establish that the lack of care evidenced by the conduct of the deceased, rather than the defendant’s own conduct, caused the accident.

    See generally FORECITE National™ Chapter 250 [Defenses And Defense Theories: General Issues].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

RATIONALE: Without an explanatory instruction the jury may improperly assume that the defendant has the burden of proof as to the issue of intervening cause.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The burden of proof of causation is on the State, and any doubt concerning causation should be resolved in favor of the defendant."  (Hubbard, JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN (C)(2): DEFENDANTS REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS VII(D) [Causation] p. 346 (South Carolina CLE, 1994).)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.3].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

    The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an act which in the natural and continuous sequence, or chain of events, unbroken by any intervening cause, aided in producing the death of __________________ (alleged victim) and without which death would not have occurred.

    If you have a reasonable doubt whether the prosecution has met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

RATIONALE: Without a special instruction the jury may not understand that gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing by medical personnel may be an intervening cause.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: See FORECITE National™ 55.8 [Subsequent Medical Treatment As Intervening Cause When Wound Not Calculated To Cause Death].

    See also FORECITE National™ 52.1 [Gross Negligence/Criminal Negligence Or Recklessness: Negligent Accident Not Sufficient].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 3.1; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

    If the death of _________ (name of victim) was due to gross negligence, reckless or willful wrongdoing, or intentional wrongdoing by the medical personnel, then the defendant is not guilty of ____________ (insert charged crime). Medical care is grossly negligent if the care is a gross deviation from accepted medical practices.

[Cf. Hubbard, JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN SOUTH CAROLINA: DEFENDANTS REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS VII(D) inst. 8 [Intervening Cause--Medical Care/Homicide] p. 355 (South Carolina CLE, 1994).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

    55.7    Error To Define Intervening Cause In Terms Of Whether Or Not It Was "Connected With The Defendant"

PRACTICE NOTE: An intervening cause may still be "connected with the defendant" but nevertheless limit liability. For example, failure of the brakes on the defendant’s car could be a valid intervening cause yet -- because the brakes were on the defendant’s car the jury could conclude that the cause of death was connected with the defendant.

    Hence, it is error to define an intervening cause in terms of whether or not it is "connected with the defendant." 

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: People v. McGee (CA 1947) 31 C2d 229, 240 [187 P2d 706] provides an exception to the general rule that a person who inflicts a wound "which is dangerous or calculated to destroy life" is not relieved of liability for homicide when the negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of an attending physical or surgeon contributes to the death. This exception is as follows: "Where a person inflicts on another a wound not in itself calculated to produce death, and the injured person dies solely as a result of the improper treatment of the wound by an attending physical or surgeon, the fact that the death was caused by medical mistreatment is a good defense to a charge of homicide...." [Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.] (Ibid.)

    This concept is also supported by dicta in Mitchell v. Prunty (9th Cir. 1997) 107 F3d 1337. In that case, the gunshot wounds would only have been fatal had they been left untreated for a matter of days or weeks. The undisputed cause of death was the crushing of the victim's chest by a vehicle driven by persons other than the defendant. Because the only basis for the defendant's liability was the gunshot wounds, the court held the evidence of causation to be insufficient. "To convict appellant of murder because he inflicted a wound that could have been fatal subverts the general rule that causation is interrupted by an unforeseen event. Professor Focht described a case in which 'the defendant wounded the deceased and the latter died of scarlet fever contracted from the physician who treated the wound. It was held that proximate causation was lacking, because the disease, while the de facto result of the wound, was unforeseeable.' [Citations.]" (Id. at 1341 fn.8.)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: Even in situations where causation is an element of the charge, such as homicide, when causation is not at issue the general causation instruction may be potentially confusing, and should not be given. 

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

    See FORECITE National™ 6.2.17 [Foreseeability: Improper To Use Terms Such As "Probable" Or "Likely"].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

PRACTICE NOTE: The pre-1992 versions of CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, CALJIC 3.40 [Cause -- "But For" Test] (West, 6th Ed. 1996) and CALJIC 8.55 informed the jury that if it found a natural and continuous sequence, then the defendant's act was, as a matter of law, the proximate cause of death. The California Supreme Court held that this is not a correct statement of the law and disapproved this language in both People v. Roberts (CA 1992) 2 C4th 271, 311-13 [6 CR2d 276] and Mitchell v. Gonzales (CA 1991) 54 C3d 1041, 1054 [1 CR2d 913]; see also Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman (NJ 1996) 678 A2d 1060, 1071 ["Language concerning the "cause that sets the other causes in motion" ... does not aid the trier of fact when there are concurrent causes of harm that are neither set in motion nor increased by the other"].  These cases held that for criminal liability to be found, the harm must not only be the direct result of the act, but also not so remote as to fail to constitute the natural and probable consequences of defendant's act.

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.1 [Causation].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 55

    See FORECITE National™ 6.2.19 [The Term "Proximate" Is Unduly Confusing].