Commonwealth v. Rementer
410 Pa. Super. 9 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct is the direct and legal cause of a death when it initiates a chain of events, and the victim's death is a natural and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, even if there is an intervening force. A victim's attempt to flee a violent assault is a foreseeable consequence.
Facts:
- Charles Rementer and his girlfriend, Mary Berry, were seen arguing in a bar, during which Berry became very upset and was crying.
- Rementer followed Berry out of the bar, forced her into the passenger seat of her own cab, and drove away.
- A witness saw Rementer beating Berry and pulling her hair inside the moving cab while she screamed for help and tried to climb out the window.
- Berry fell from the vehicle, and Rementer exited the cab to continue beating her with his fists while she was on the ground before forcing her back into the vehicle.
- Minutes later, witnesses saw Rementer again punch Berry, who then ran from the cab screaming for help.
- Berry ran towards a station wagon driven by Vito Michielli, pleading to be let in, with Rementer chasing 'right behind her'.
- Frightened, Michielli pushed Berry away from his car and sped off, unknowingly running over and killing her in the process.
- A coroner's report found the cause of death to be a crush injury but also noted blunt head trauma and contusions consistent with direct blows to the face.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Rementer was charged with causing the death of Mary Berry.
- At a non-jury trial in the court of first instance, Rementer was convicted of murder in the third degree.
- Rementer's post-verdict motions were denied by the trial court.
- The trial court imposed a judgment of sentence of four to twelve years imprisonment.
- Rementer (appellant) appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
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 defendant's assault, which causes the victim to flee into traffic where she is struck and killed by another vehicle, constitute a sufficiently direct cause of death to sustain a conviction for third-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Beck, J.
Yes, the defendant's assault constitutes a sufficiently direct cause of death. To establish criminal causation, the defendant's conduct must be a 'direct and substantial factor' in the death, a stricter standard than tort law's proximate cause. The court applies a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the defendant's conduct was an antecedent 'but for' which the result would not have occurred, and 2) whether the fatal result was so extraordinarily remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally responsible. Here, 'but for' Rementer's brutal and persistent assault, Berry would not have been fleeing in the street. Her death was not a remote or unforeseeable consequence; it is entirely natural and foreseeable that a victim of a deadly assault will attempt to escape. The risk of serious injury or death during such an escape on a public street with moving vehicles was inherent in the situation Rementer created. Therefore, his conduct was a direct and substantial cause of her death.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of criminal causation in situations involving an intervening cause and a victim's responsive actions. The court's decision establishes that a defendant cannot escape liability by arguing that the victim's own flight or a third party's action broke the chain of causation, so long as the victim's actions were a foreseeable response to the defendant's criminal conduct. This precedent makes it harder for defendants to claim a death was too 'remote' or 'accidental' when their own violent acts put the victim in a position of peril, forcing them to take desperate measures. It affirms that the foreseeability of a victim's escape is a key factor in determining legal causation for homicide.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Rementer