Commonwealth v. Rhoades
401 N.E.2d 342 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant to be criminally liable for a death under the felony-murder rule, the defendant's felonious act must be the proximate cause of the death, not merely a contributing factor or a remote link in the chain of events.
Facts:
- On December 31, 1977, Ronald Rhoades, Jr. was an uninvited guest at the first-floor apartment of Santos Velasquez Murillo.
- After drinking several beers, Rhoades announced he was going to the bathroom, took a cigarette from a pack on a table, and lit it.
- A plastic bottle of rubbing alcohol was located on a shelf in the bathroom.
- Approximately five minutes after Rhoades went to the bathroom, a fire erupted, which expert testimony later established had originated in the bathroom and was started with an accelerant ignited by an open flame.
- A witness saw Rhoades leave the building just before the fire was discovered, walk away at a fast pace, and then return to a position across the street to watch the building burn.
- Three residents of an upstairs apartment—Walter Juskiewicz and two young children—died from smoke inhalation as a result of the fire.
- Captain James Trainor, a firefighter responding to the blaze, collapsed on the roof of the building and was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital.
- A medical expert concluded that Captain Trainor's death was caused by a coronary thrombosis precipitated by the combination of cold weather, stress, and smoke inhalation while fighting the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Rhoades, Jr. was indicted in the Superior Court on four counts of murder and one count of arson.
- Following a jury trial, Rhoades was convicted of four counts of murder in the second degree and one count of arson.
- Rhoades, as the appellant, appealed the convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest 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 jury instruction on felony-murder satisfy the legal requirement of proximate cause if it permits a conviction where the defendant's act was merely a 'contributing cause' or 'in any way contributed to' the victim's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
No. A jury instruction for felony-murder is legally insufficient if it allows a conviction based on a finding that the defendant’s act was merely a 'contributing cause' rather than the proximate cause of death. The charge to the jury regarding Captain Trainor's death was erroneous because it used language like 'in any way contributed to' and 'contributing cause,' which created the impression that any remote link between the defendant's act of setting the fire and the firefighter's death would suffice for a conviction. The proper standard requires the jury to find that the defendant's conduct was the 'efficient cause' that, in a natural and continuous sequence, produced the death. Because the instructions failed to explain this crucial element of proximate cause clearly, the conviction for the murder of Captain Trainor must be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of proximate causation in criminal law, particularly within the context of felony-murder. By distinguishing between a mere 'contributing cause' and the 'efficient' or 'proximate' cause, the court limits the potentially boundless scope of felony-murder liability. The ruling establishes that a defendant's act must have a direct and substantial causal relationship to the death, preventing convictions for remote or unforeseeable consequences. This case serves as a key precedent for how jury instructions on causation must be framed, ensuring that jurors apply the correct legal standard before holding a defendant responsible for a death that occurs indirectly during the commission of a felony.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Rhoades