Letner v. State
156 Tenn. 68, 3 Smith & H. 68, 299 S.W. 1049 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual is criminally liable for a death that is the natural and probable consequence of their unlawful act, even if the death is immediately precipitated by a third party's intervening act, so long as the intervening act was a foreseeable reaction to the individual's initial conduct.
Facts:
- Alfred Johnson, his brother Walter Johnson, and the defendant's half-brother Jesse Letner were crossing the Emory River in a boat.
- The defendant believed the Johnson brothers had stolen his chickens and a gun.
- From a high bluff, the defendant fired a shot into the water about six feet from the boat.
- The defendant then fired a second shot, which landed closer to the boat.
- In response to the shots, Walter Johnson jumped out of the boat into the river.
- Walter Johnson's act of jumping out caused the boat to capsize.
- As a result of the boat capsizing, Alfred Johnson and Walter Johnson both drowned.
- The defendant later admitted to another person that he had fired a shot to frighten the boys.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for the murder of Alfred Johnson in the trial court.
- A jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years in the penitentiary.
- The defendant, as plaintiff in error, appealed his conviction to the state's highest 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 unlawful act of shooting near a boat constitute the proximate cause of a drowning death when a third party, frightened by the shots, jumps from the boat, causing it to capsize and the victim to drown?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McKinney
Yes, the defendant's unlawful act constitutes the proximate cause of the drowning death. An individual is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of their own unlawful act. The court reasoned that Walter Johnson jumping from the boat was not an independent, supervening cause but a natural and foreseeable result of the defendant's wrongful act of shooting at or near the boat's occupants. Therefore, there was an unbroken causal connection between the defendant's act and the resulting deaths, making him criminally responsible for the homicide. The court found this situation analogous to the famous 'Squib Case' (Scott v. Shepherd), where the person who first threw a lit firework was held liable for the eventual injury it caused after being tossed by several others in self-defense.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the doctrine of proximate cause in criminal homicide, particularly in scenarios involving an intervening act by a third party. The decision establishes that an intervening act does not break the chain of causation if that act is a foreseeable and natural reaction to the defendant's initial wrongful conduct. This precedent solidifies the principle that a defendant cannot escape liability by arguing that another person's panicked response was the direct cause of death, as the law traces responsibility back to the primary wrongdoer who set the dangerous events in motion. This ruling impacts future homicide cases by broadening the scope of what is considered a 'direct result' of a defendant's actions.
