People v. Flenon
1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 953, 202 N.W.2d 471, 42 Mich. App. 457 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who inflicts a non-mortal injury is criminally liable for the victim's death if the death results from foreseeable complications of necessary medical treatment, unless the medical treatment itself was grossly erroneous.
Facts:
- On March 21, 1970, the defendant, carrying a shotgun, left a house with the stated purpose of 'getting back' at someone.
- The defendant encountered a group of people, including Carl Johnson, and upon seeing the defendant's gun, the group dispersed.
- The defendant chased Johnson, cornered him behind a parked car, and shot him in the upper leg.
- Due to the severity of the wound, Johnson was hospitalized where his right leg was amputated, a procedure which required blood transfusions.
- Johnson was released from the hospital five weeks later but soon weakened and was readmitted.
- Johnson subsequently died, and an autopsy determined the cause of death to be serum hepatitis and pneumonia, with the hepatitis contracted from the blood transfusions.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was tried by a jury in a Michigan trial court.
- The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.
- The defendant appealed his conviction as a matter of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 victim's death from serum hepatitis, contracted from a necessary blood transfusion administered after a non-mortal gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, constitute an independent intervening cause sufficient to break the chain of causation for criminal homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Bronson, J.
No. The victim's death from serum hepatitis does not constitute an independent intervening cause sufficient to break the chain of criminal causation. For a defendant to be relieved of liability for a death that occurs during medical treatment for a non-mortal wound, the treatment must be grossly erroneous. In this case, the blood transfusion was necessary because of the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, and contracting serum hepatitis was a foreseeable, albeit low-probability, risk associated with that procedure. Because the risk was foreseeable and the medical community's inability to screen for the disease did not amount to grossly erroneous treatment, the causal link between the defendant's act and the victim's death remains intact. The defendant must take his victim as he finds him, including any susceptibility to disease contracted during necessary medical care.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high threshold for breaking the chain of causation in criminal homicide cases involving subsequent medical care. It distinguishes criminal causation from the more lenient 'proximate cause' standard in torts, requiring a more direct link. The court establishes that only 'grossly erroneous' medical treatment for a non-mortal wound, not ordinary negligence or foreseeable complications, can sever a defendant's liability. This ruling reinforces the 'take your victim as you find them' doctrine and has significant implications for cases where victims with pre-existing conditions or those who suffer medical complications die after being injured by a defendant.
