Who, What, Where, Why and How: Understanding Causation and Harm in Criminal Cases

Introduction

Causation and harm refers to establishing the cause of a criminal outcome or harm, such as a homicide. Depending on the case, the prosecutor may seek to prove causation and harm. 

Challenging causation is important to a defense in such a case. The defense would seek to show a break in the chain of causation, proving that something or someone other than the defendant caused the outcome. Causation also extends to other types of law, including civil tort law, contract law, and environmental law, in cases where harm must be proven. Therefore, understanding causation and harm in criminal law can help you analyze other areas of law, too. Read on to learn more about this significant topic. 

What Is Causation and Harm?

Previously, you learned from the Criminal Elements article on our website that every crime must have these three elements:

1. An act that is prohibited by law (actus reus or “guilty act”)

2. The intent (or state of mind) of the acting individual (mens rea or “guilty mind”)

3. The concurrence of the action and intention at the same time 

Some crimes have a fourth required element: causation and harm.  Causation and harm requires that the defendant’s conduct (which must include the act and intent, happening concurrently) caused the criminal result or harm. There are two types of causation and harm.

Types of Causation and Harm 

The first type of causation and harm is the actual (or direct) cause known as cause-in-fact causation. 

There are tests used to determine cause-in-fact causation. These include:

• The “but for” test asks whether the result would not have happened but for the conduct of the defendant. 

• When multiple parties or causes are involved, the substantial factor test asks whether the defendant was a substantial factor toward the outcome.  

• The acceleration test asks if the defendant’s conduct sped up an inevitable death.

The second type of causation and harm is proximate cause, which applies to a chain of events. Proximate cause asserts that the defendant is responsible even when other events, causes, or parties are involved. For crimes requiring recklessness or negligence, the harmful outcome must be within the risk created by the defendant. For example, if a victim dies from vehicular manslaughter in a chain of events started by the defendant’s reckless driving, the defendant is the proximate cause of the victim’s death even if they are not the one who hit the defendant with their car. For intent crimes, a similar principle applies. The harmful outcome must be sufficiently similar to the crime’s intended outcome.   

When determining proximate cause, it is common for an intervening event to be evaluated. An intervening event is a break in the defendant’s chain of events. An intervening event may supersede (or replace) the defendant’s criminal responsibility for the outcome. To establish whether the intervening event should supersede the defendant’s responsibility, it must be determined whether the intervening event was foreseeable or not.

• If the intervening event was foreseeable, then it does not supersede the defendant’s responsibility.

• If the intervening event was not foreseeable, it usually supersedes the defendant’s responsibility.

In California, evaluations of causation and harm involve a mix of the “but for” and substantial factor tests. According to California jury instructions, the harmful outcome must be “the direct, natural, and probable consequence” of the defendant’s conduct; in a chain of events, the defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor. (CALCRIM No. 240) In cases involving a death, the jury instructions state that the defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor causing the death. (CALCRIM No. 260)

Crimes That Require Causation and Harm

Causation and harm is a requirement of result crimes. Examples of result crimes include murder, manslaughter, and more. By contrast, conduct crimes require only the particular act, and there is no outcome necessary.  Examples of conduct crimes include theft, driving under the influence, conspiracy, and more.

Rebuttable Presumption

Some states have time limits for establishing causation of a victim’s death. If the time limit expires, there is a rebuttable presumption that the cause of the victim’s death was not criminal. A rebuttable presumption is a fact that can be assumed true, unless it is rebutted (challenged and overturned by evidence). An example of a case where this could apply is when a victim remains alive in the hospital following an attack, but later passes away. The main time limit rules for such cases are the one year and a day or three years and a day rules. These rules affirm that the defendant is responsible for the outcome within one (or three) years and a day from the initial act. California adheres to the three years and a day rule. Therefore, after three years and a day in California, the rebuttable presumption is that the victim’s cause of death was not criminal. A prosecutor can still prove their challenge to that rebuttable presumption.

Conclusion

In conclusion, you learned that some crimes require the fourth element of causation and harm. There are two types: cause-in-fact (actual) causation and proximate causation, which each have their own tests. You also learned that result crimes require causation, while conduct crimes do not. Should you wish to learn more about causation and harm, you may read the case Velazquez v. State, 561 So. 2d 347 (1990). At trial, Velazquez was convicted of vehicular homicide when the victim, the co-participant in the pair’s drag race, died. Velazquez appealed his conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeal. The Appeal Court overturned Velazquez’s conviction, ruling that even though Velazquez was a substantial factor, the victim’s own reckless actions during the drag race caused the victim’s death. According to the Court, it was therefore unjust to hold Velasquez criminally responsible for the victim’s death. The Court’s ruling exemplifies the critical role of causation in a defense.