Cannon v. State
181 A.3d 615 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conviction of criminally negligent homicide, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with criminal negligence, failing to perceive an obvious and significant risk of death, and that the victim's death was not too remote or accidental in its occurrence relative to the risk created by the defendant's conduct, as assessed under 11 Del. C. § 263.
Facts:
- Alcee Johnson-Franklin sent a text message to a group including Tracy Cannon, which Tracy believed was about her.
- Tracy and Alcee exchanged contentious text messages.
- Tracy, Alcee, and another girl met in a school bathroom, and a hall monitor overheard screaming, though Alcee later reported nothing happened.
- Another student posted a Snapchat video showing Tracy and two others bragging about intending to 'get' Alcee.
- The next morning, Tracy and two other students followed Alcee into a school bathroom, where approximately thirty other students gathered.
- Tracy grabbed Alcee, slammed her to the ground, pulled her hair, and struck her with loosely-balled fists, leading to both girls grappling and kicking on the floor for less than a minute.
- Alcee was found pale, moaning, and holding her abdomen, later stopped breathing, and was pronounced dead at the hospital a little over an hour after the attack.
- Alcee's autopsy revealed no blunt-force trauma sufficient to cause death or serious injury, only minor soft tissue injuries, and attributed her death to 'sudden cardiac death due to a large atrial septal defect and pulmonary hypertension' (Eisenmenger Syndrome), with the stress from the assault as a contributing cause, a condition unknown to Alcee or her family and impossible for a lay person to predict.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Delaware charged Tracy Cannon with criminally negligent homicide and conspiracy to commit misdemeanor assault in Family Court.
- The Family Court held a five-day bench trial.
- The Family Court adjudicated Tracy Cannon delinquent of criminally negligent homicide and conspiracy to commit misdemeanor assault.
- Tracy Cannon appealed the adjudication of delinquency for criminally negligent homicide to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physical altercation that causes only minor physical injuries and results in death from an unforeseeable, pre-existing rare heart condition constitute criminally negligent homicide when the actual cause of death is too remote from the risks the defendant should have perceived?
Opinions:
Majority - traynor, justice
No, a physical altercation causing minor injuries and leading to death from an unforeseeable, pre-existing heart condition does not constitute criminally negligent homicide when the actual cause of death is too remote from the risks the defendant should have perceived. The Court reversed the Family Court's adjudication of delinquency for criminally negligent homicide, finding the evidence insufficient to prove either criminal negligence or causation beyond a reasonable doubt. First, regarding criminal negligence, the Court held that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Tracy's attack, which inflicted only minor physical injuries, posed a risk of death so great that Tracy was grossly deviant for not recognizing it. While the Family Court emphasized the bathroom's hard surfaces, the video showed the attack occurred in a large area, and the girls did not come close to fixtures. The risk of death was not 'readily apparent' enough to meet the 'gross deviation' standard, even applying an adult standard of care. Second, concerning causation under 11 Del. C. § 263, the Court determined that Alcee's death by sudden cardiac arrest, caused primarily by an unknown, rare heart defect, was too remote and accidental from the probable risk identified by the Family Court (death from impact with hard bathroom surfaces) to hold Tracy criminally responsible for the homicide. Section 263 requires a sufficient relationship between the nature of the risk created and the way death transpired, negating liability if the actual result is outside the risk the defendant should have been aware of and is 'too remote or accidental.' The Court rejected the State's reliance on the eggshell-victim doctrine in this criminal negligence context, noting that § 263 mandates consideration of unexpected physical conditions when assessing culpability.
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment - vaughn, justice
Yes, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Ms. Cannon acted with the criminal negligence required for criminally negligent homicide. Justice Vaughn agreed with the majority that there was insufficient evidence of criminal negligence to support the delinquency finding. However, he wrote separately to state that he believes it was unnecessary for the Court to engage in a § 263 causation analysis. In his view, § 263 only comes into play when an actor's state of mind does satisfy the definition of criminal negligence, but the person injured or the actual injury differs from what was probable. If the actor does not possess a criminally negligent state of mind to begin with, there is no need to consider § 263.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high bar for proving criminal negligence and, crucially, legal causation under 11 Del. C. § 263 in Delaware. It establishes that merely contributing to a death (but-for causation) is insufficient; the actual cause of death must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the foreseeable risks created by the defendant's conduct. The decision implicitly limits the application of the 'eggshell-victim' doctrine in criminal negligence cases, emphasizing that unforeseeable medical conditions can render a death 'too remote' for criminal culpability under § 263. This will make it more challenging for the State to secure criminally negligent homicide convictions when an unexpected or highly unusual intervening cause leads to death, reinforcing that criminal responsibility requires a more direct and foreseeable link between the negligent act and the ultimate outcome.
