Theoretical legal question

[FlyingRamenMonster]

First, the usual disclaimer: I have no intention of doing any of this :dubious:

Suppose someone attacks someone and injures them badly enough that death is imminent, and as soon as they die the attacker will get charged with murder. Now suppose that before the victim dies naturally the roof comes down in their hospital ward and kills them. Does the attacker still get charged with murder? How about if they are killed while in hospital by a crazed homicidal maniac/loved one seeking to put them out of their misery? Who gets the murder charge then?

[Bricker]

@FlyingRamenMonster

First, the usual disclaimer: I have no intention of doing any of this :dubious:

Suppose someone attacks someone and injures them badly enough that death is imminent, and as soon as they die the attacker will get charged with murder. Now suppose that before the victim dies naturally the roof comes down in their hospital ward and kills them. Does the attacker still get charged with murder? How about if they are killed while in hospital by a crazed homicidal maniac/loved one seeking to put them out of their misery? Who gets the murder charge then?

In general, the death has to result from the act you’re charged with committing. If an independent intervening cause results in death, something that was not proximately related to what you did, then you’re off the hook for murder. Attempted murder is still on the table.

[Gfactor]

The general rule is that “a defendant will be found not responsible for the death . . . only if an extraordinary intervening event supersedes the defendant’s act and becomes the sole legal cause of death.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ks&vol=supct/2002/20020125/&invol=85172 (defendant guilty of unintentional homicide despite alleged intervening medical malpractice) *citing * State v. Shaffer, 223 Kan. 244, 574 P.2d 205 (1977) (Family members decided not to prolong victim’s life by a respirator and allowed his kidneys to be removed for transplantation; defendant still guilty of murder).

Is a collapsing roof sufficiently extraordinary to supersede the attacker’s conduct as the proximate cause of death? A good question.

Predictable actions of others certainly don’t fit the bill:

See **Bonhart v. U.S., 691 A.2d 160, 162-63 (D.C. 1997) (act of person going back into burning house to rescue dog not sufficient to break chain of causation for felony murder based on arson); State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 62, 147 A. 118 (1929) (act of boys in attempting to rescue personal possessions from house not sufficient to break chain of causation for felony murder based on arson)."

FindLaw's KS case and opinions.

But your examples are a little more far-fetched than the cases I cited. Who would predict collapsing roof? OTOH, some states say that intervening ordinary negligence does not supercede a homicidal act. http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20050727_S126067_50_schaefer1-2may05-op.pdf (pdf). Assuming:

1. They really mean it (most of the examples are of the intervening medical malpractice type); and
2. The roof collapse is due to negligence (not reckless or grossly negigent) , or maybe just some natural phenomenon and not reckless, grossly negligent, or intentional conduct of some third party

the roof collapse might not break the chain of causation. The homicidal maniac or loved one probably would.

As **Bricker **points out, there are still other crimes on the table.