Henderson v. State
65 So. 721, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 1, 11 Ala. App. 37 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is guilty of homicide if their unlawful act contributes to or accelerates the victim's death, even if that act is not the immediate or sole cause of death and another person inflicts a separate, fatal wound.
Facts:
- A state of bad feeling existed between the defendant and the deceased, who owned a store near the defendant's home.
- The defendant's wife and son went to the deceased's store and later reported to the defendant that the deceased had used abusive and insulting language toward them.
- The defendant went to the store to confront the deceased, and a physical altercation began inside.
- During the fight, the deceased grabbed a shotgun, which the defendant knocked from his hands.
- The men grappled and fell to the ground outside the store, where the defendant cut the deceased three times with a pocketknife, inflicting a serious wound to the abdomen.
- While the defendant and deceased were still fighting on the ground, the defendant's son ran from their nearby house with a shotgun.
- The son shot the deceased in the chest.
- The deceased died shortly thereafter, with evidence indicating the gunshot wound was the immediate cause of death, but the knife wound accelerated it and would likely have been fatal on its own.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted, jointly with his son, for murder in the first degree.
- The defendant was tried separately in a trial court.
- A jury convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years in the penitentiary.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the 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:
Is a defendant criminally liable for homicide if he inflicts a knife wound that accelerates the victim's death, even though a subsequent, independently fatal gunshot wound inflicted by another person was the immediate cause of death?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
Yes. A defendant is criminally liable for homicide if his actions contributed to the victim's death. The court provided two alternative theories for the defendant's guilt. First, under the 'contributing cause' theory, if the jury believed the knife wound inflicted by the defendant contributed to or accelerated the death of the deceased, the defendant is guilty of homicide. This holds true even if the jury did not believe the knife wound alone would have inevitably caused death. Second, under an accomplice liability theory, if the jury believed there was a preconcert or community of purpose between the defendant and his son to assault the deceased, the defendant would be responsible for his son's act of shooting the deceased, unless the son acted independently from personal malice.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of concurrent causation in homicide law, establishing that a defendant cannot escape liability by arguing another's act was the final or more immediate cause of death. The ruling clarifies that any act which is a substantial factor in bringing about the death, either by contributing to or accelerating it, is sufficient to establish causation. It provides prosecutors with two distinct paths to conviction in cases with multiple assailants: proving either direct contribution to the death or accomplice liability through a common purpose, thereby making it more difficult for co-perpetrators to shift blame.
