Today is
|
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
INFO
Accomplice
Arrest
Courts
Wisconsin Circuit Court Websites
Trials
Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
Web Details
BAC - Determining Your Blood Alcohol Level
Prior OWI Convictions Challenges
Defenses
Affirmative Defenses
Justification
Crimes Against Property
Causation
Criminal Liability
Causation is basic to criminal liability. The law provides that a person must be found criminally liable for the crime with which they are charged in order for the law to impose a penalty for committing the crime. Theoretically, criminal liability must attach for a guilty verdict, however, in reality, it is common for juries to find innocent people guilty of crimes.
Actual Causation & Proximate Causation
In order for a defendant to be found criminally liable for a homicide, it must be shown that the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the resulting homicide.
Actual Causation or Cause in fact
Actual cause is called the cause in fact. Actual cause examines the link between the defendant's actions and the resulting homicide, and asks the question, "who or what actually caused the result"? If the charges stem from the defendant's failure to act (omission), then the first question is whether the defendant had a duty to act. If the defendant did not have a legal duty to act, then his failure to act is not a crime; if he had a duty to act, then his failure to act is a crime. Courts often apply one of two tests: the but-for test or the substantial factor test.
The "But-For" Test
In a "but-for" test, the question is asked whether the resulting homicide would have resulted "but-for" the act or actions of the defendant. If the resulting homicide would not have occurred"but-for" the defendant's act or actions, then the defendant is the actual cause of the resulting homicide; however, if the resulting homicide would have occurred regardless of the defendant's act or actions, then the defendant is not the cause in fact of the resulting homicide.
The Substantial Factor Test
When multiple causes, people, or events are responsible for the resulting homicide, then the question posed is whether the defendant's own act or actions were a substantial factor in causing the resulting homicide. Even if the defendant's acts were not the direct or the only cause of the resulting homicide, under the substantial factor test, the defendant may be found guilty of criminal homicide if it can be proven that those acts were a substantial factor in the resulting homicide.
Intervening Acts
If an intervening act occurs - some event that occurs between the defendant's act and the resulting homicide - and that act was the cause in fact of the resulting homicide, then the defendant's act did not cause the resulting homicide and criminal liability does not attach (See homicide of terminally ill, homicide of dead victim), however, if the other act combines with the defendant's act to cause the homicide, then the defendant's act is an intervening cause and may be a dependent or independent intervening cause constituting criminal liability. (See dependent and independent intervening cause).
Proximate Cause
Generally speaking, in terms of homicide and criminal liability, under common law principles, proximate cause is the legal cause of a resulting homicide. More widely known for its application to tort law, proximate cause is a critical principle in criminal law application because it can serve as the theory upon which a finding of guilty rests, despite the fact that the evidence would otherwise support a not guilty verdict. Proximate cause covers a vast area of the law; here, we will focus on two primary areas: direct cause and indirect cause.
Direct Cause
If the defendant's actions cause the resulting homicide, then the defendant is said to be the direct and proximate cause of the homicide. That would be so even if the defendant had a particular medical condition, such as hemophilia, and a blow that would not normally result in death causes the death of the victim. Regardless of the medical condition, the defendant would then be the direct cause of the resulting homicide.
Indirect Cause
Indirect causation issues regarding criminal liability of a homicide are very complex legal issues that require the expertise of a highly experienced criminal defense lawyer. These issues involve the displacement of legal liability onto a direct or indirect intervening cause or superseding dependent or independent cause.
Dependent and Independent Intervening Cause
A dependent intervening cause is some event or force that results from the defendant's actions.
An independent intervening cause is some event or force that would have occurred regardless of the defendant's actions. To relieve the defendant of criminal liability, the independent intervening cause must supersede the decedent's actions. If the superseding event is an abnormal response to the defendant's actions, then the event is said to be a dependent supervening cause and the proximate cause. In other words, if an event occurs only because of the defendant's actions, and that event is the cause of the homicide, then the defendant is criminally liable because the superseding event would not have occurred but-for the actions of the defendant.
However, if the superseding event occurred before the defendant's act, and that event was independent of the defendant's act, then the event is an independent supervening cause of the resulting homicide and criminally liability does not attach.
Defendant & Third Party
When a defendant and a third party act together to bring about a homicide, and the resulting homicide would not have occurred but for the actions of both parties, then both parties can be charged with the completed crime, so long as the defendant's actions were an actual cause of the crime. And if those actions were an actual cause, then they would also be a proximate cause. They would both be vicariously liable.
Typical Questions Relating To Proximate Cause Issues
When a major case is covered by television stations, it is not uncommon for Attorney Chris Van Wagner to be asked to appear as a guest commentator on a network such as Good Morning America, Court TV, or even the local TV 27 to answer questions. Some of those types of questions appear above, below, and on the following links.
One Year And One Day Rule
Under traditional common law principles, courts would rule that the defendant's actions were not the proximate cause of the homicide if the victim died after one year and one day from the date of the crime.
Today, most jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, have abolished this rule. In the minority of jurisdictions where this rule still exists, it has been extended.
Omission To Act
An omission to act is failing to act to prevent harm to another where there is a duty to act. A duty to act exists where there is a special relationship (such as a parent and child), a contract, or by statute. As well, a duty to act can be created where none previously existed, such as when the defendant began a life saving act and then withdrew without a sufficient reason or prevented another from preventing harm (or death) to the victim.
Third Party Causation Issues
Third-party causation issues are vicarious liability issues, rather than causation issues, even though they deal with an element of causation. Vicarious liability is covered under the titles applicable to their legal responsibility: accomplice liability, coconspirator liability, felony murder rule, solicitation.
Contact Van
Wagner & Wood 
Van Wagner & Wood's office is located at Martin Luther
King, Jr. Blvd. and Doty Street. 10 East Doty is located on the outside
of the first circle surrounding the capitol building. You can park under
the building by entering the parking lot from Doty Street. If you park
under 10 East Doty, the offices of Van Wagner & Wood will validate
your parking ticket so that you do not have to pay to park. If the parking
ramp is full, there are numerous parking places surrounding 10 East Doty,
as well as a public parking ramp on State street.
Appeals & Serious Crimes - Homicide - Murder
Federal Crimes
Former Federal prosecutor, Attorney Chris Van Wagner,
handles Federal cases, which includes Federal drug crimes and other Federal
criminal charges.
Drug Crimes
Adams (Adams, Wisconsin Dells), Ashland (Ashland), Barron
(Barron), Bayfield (Washburn, Bayfield), Buffalo (Buffalo City, Mondovi),
Burnett (Siren), Chippewa (Chippewa Falls), Clark (Abbotsford), Columbia
(Columbus), Crawford (Prairie du Chien), Dane (Belleville, Black Earth,
Blue Mounds, Brooklyn, Cambridge, Cottage Grove, Cross Plains, Dane, Deerfield,
DeForest, Fitchburg, McFarland, Madison, Maple Bluff, Marshall, Mazomanie,
Middleton, Monona, Mount Horeb, Oregon, Rockdale, Shorewood Hills, Stoughton,
Sun Prairie, Verona, Waunakee, Windsor), Douglas (Superior), Dunn (Menomonie),
Eau Claire (Abbotsford, Eau Claire), Grant (Mount Hope, Lancaster, Fennimore),
Green (Monroe), Iowa (Mineral Point, Dodgeville), Jackson (Black River
Falls), Jefferson (Jefferson), Juneau (Mauston), La Crosse (LaCrosse,
Lafayette, Darlington), Marathon (Wausau), Monroe (Sparta), Pepin (Durand),
Pierce (River Falls), Polk (St Croix Falls), Portage (Stevens Point),
Price (Park Falls), Richland (Richland Center), Rock (Janesville), Rusk
(Ladysmith), St Croix (Hudson), Sauk (Sauk City), Taylor (Medford), Trempealeau
(Whitehall), Washburn (Spooner), and Wood (Wisconsin Dells) counties.
Drunk Driving (OWI, DUI, DWI)
Sexual Assault & Sex Crimes
Dane (Madison, Middleton, Monona, Fitchburg), Green (Monroe),
Lafayette (Darlington), Dodge (Beaver Dam, Waupun), Portage (Stevens Point),
Wood (Wisconsin Rapids), Sauk (Wisconsin Dells), Columbia (Columbus),
Richland (Richland Center) and Juneau (Mauston) area.
