People v. McAfee
2004 WL 583721, 104 P.3d 226, 2004 Colo. App. LEXIS 444 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's failure to wear a seatbelt is not an independent intervening cause that can relieve a defendant of criminal liability for vehicular homicide or assault, as such failure is considered foreseeable.
Facts:
- Anthony E. McAfee was driving a car with two passengers after having used crack cocaine for several days prior.
- At the time of the incident, McAfee was driving to obtain more crack cocaine.
- McAfee drove the car head-on into a telephone pole.
- The front-seat passenger suffered two broken legs, as well as head and internal injuries.
- The back-seat passenger suffered massive injuries and died shortly after the accident.
- Neither passenger was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash.
- After the crash, McAfee told a bystander that "the driver ran" and then fled the scene in a taxicab.
- A subsequent blood test revealed a cocaine metabolite in McAfee's system, indicating he had ingested cocaine within 18 to 24 hours of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged Anthony E. McAfee with vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident.
- At trial, McAfee moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the blood test evidence was unreliable; the trial court denied the motion.
- McAfee also requested a jury instruction that the victims' failure to wear seatbelts constituted an intervening cause for their injuries, which the trial court refused.
- A jury in the state trial court found McAfee guilty on all charges.
- The trial court sentenced McAfee to forty-seven years in the Department of Corrections.
- McAfee (as appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and sentences to the Colorado Court of Appeals (the 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 victim's failure to wear a seatbelt constitute an independent intervening cause sufficient to relieve a defendant of criminal liability for injuries sustained in a vehicle collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Taubman
No, a victim's failure to wear a seatbelt does not constitute an independent intervening cause sufficient to relieve a defendant of criminal liability. An intervening cause must be unforeseeable and more than a mere contributing cause to the injury. The court reasoned that a defendant is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of their unlawful act. While a victim's gross negligence may be an unforeseeable intervening cause, simple negligence that contributes to an injury is considered foreseeable as a matter of law. Aligning with numerous other jurisdictions, the court concluded that a victim's failure to use a seatbelt is not a cause of the collision itself and is a foreseeable act that does not break the chain of causation initiated by the defendant's criminal conduct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Colorado's position that a defendant in a criminal case cannot shift blame to a victim for failing to take self-protective measures like wearing a seatbelt. It reinforces the tort and criminal law principle that a defendant takes their victim as they find them, and it prevents the introduction of contributory negligence as a defense in criminal proceedings where the defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of the event. The ruling aligns Colorado with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, establishing a clear precedent that the foreseeability of a victim's simple negligence does not sever the causal link to the defendant's criminal actions. This will likely prevent future defendants in similar cases from successfully arguing that a victim's failure to wear a seatbelt absolves them of liability for vehicular assault or homicide.
