Causation In Criminal Cases

Causation is used in criminal cases in order to determine what the accused should be charged with or convicted of. The basic rule of causation is that a person is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of their actions. Causation helps the trial jury understand the difference between crimes like first degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. Because, while the essence of both of those crimes is the same, a person is being accused of causing the death of another person, the person’s role in the death of the victim are different, therefore they have varying degrees of responsibility. This is important when it comes to sentencing, while a person can be executed in Kentucky for first degree murder, a person might only receive

a sentence of twelve to sixteen months plus probation for involuntary manslaughter.
In the case of Monty Peckham the defendant has been charged with first degree murder of the victim, Tom Jelke. This charge would indicate that Peckham was the direct cause of the death of Jelke. In order for Peckham to be the direct cause of the death of the victim one must analyze the accused’s actions using the “but for” test. This test asks the question but for the accused’s act, the result would not have occurred. In the context of Peckham’s case one must ask, but for the accused’s act of shooting the victim twice in the head, would the victim have died? The answer is no. But for the accused shooting the victim in the head, the victim would still be alive. Therefore the accused was the direct cause of the victim’s death, and should be held responsible for this; because it was the natural and probable cause of his actions.
As for the defense’s claim that it was the doctors who caused the death of the victim rather than the accused, one must analyze the chain of causation that led to the doctor disconnecting the ventilator to find out. The defense claims that the doctor disconnecting the victim’s ventilator was a superseding cause in the victim’s death and it removes responsibility from the accused. If this argument would prove to be valid one would have to prove that the chain of causation is completely broken, and that the end result was so unpredictable that it would not be reasonable to hold the original actor (the accused) responsible for the harm caused by the superseding cause. In this case one must look logically at the events leading to the death of the victim and decide if it is reasonable that the victim would still be alive if the original act of getting shot by the accused had not occurred. It is true that the victim did not die immediately following the shooting. His heart was still beating upon arrival to the hospital. However, the victim had suffered irreversible brain damage, and loss of brain function, he was essentially brain dead, and completely unresponsive. He was kept alive by life sustaining machines such as the ventilator but was in a comatose, vegetative, and brain dead state. The victim’s heart did not stop beating until the doctor disconnected the ventilator, however he was on the ventilator as a direct result of the accused’s action of shooting him. Therefore the doctor disconnecting the ventilator was not a superseding cause of death in this case and the accused is still legally responsible.
In the end, Peckham’s actions are still the direct cause of the death of Jelke.

Any reasonable person would expect someone to die after being shot twice in the head. Peckham did knowingly and purposefully point a gun at the victim’s head and pull the trigger, not once, but twice. The accused’s intentions could not have been clearer. A reasonable person would also expect the victim to be taken to a hospital if they were not pronounced dead at the scene, as in this case. Upon arrival at the hospital it was determined that the victim had suffered irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function. He was no longer able to breathe on his own, he was unresponsive to stimuli, and his electroencephalogram showed a flat line, indicating no brain activity. Had it not been for the machines keeping him breathing his heart would have stopped soon after arriving at the hospital. He was not able to sustain life on his own, and would have never recovered. A reasonable person would expect a doctor to eventually stop treatment on a patient who was not going to recover, such as the victim in thus case. So, given these facts his family decided to allow the doctors to remove the artificial life support. Immediately following this decision the victim did die. Now the question is who is directly responsible for the death of the victim, the accused is. Because the accused did shoot the victim in the head, and the victim was sent to the hospital where he died as a direct result of his injuries, the accused is the direct cause of the victim’s death and should be held

responsible.