People v. Roberts
826 P.2d 274 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant to be criminally liable for a death that results from the reactive or reflexive conduct of an initial victim, the resulting death must be a foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of the defendant's original act. An intervening act is not a superseding cause if the result was foreseeable.
Facts:
- Defendant Stanley Roberts, an inmate at the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, was a member of the Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) prison gang.
- On the morning of August 17, 1980, Roberts, with the assistance of co-defendant Archie Menefield, attacked fellow inmate Charles Gardner in a prison corridor.
- Roberts stabbed Gardner 11 times, inflicting what would become fatal wounds.
- Gardner, though mortally wounded, was able to grab a knife an assailant had left on the floor.
- Gardner pursued Menefield up a flight of stairs to the second floor.
- When correctional officer Albert Patch attempted to intervene and secure Gardner, the wounded and dazed Gardner stabbed Patch in the chest.
- Officer Patch died within the hour, and Gardner died shortly afterward.
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley Roberts was charged in a California superior court (trial court) with, among other things, the first-degree murders of Charles Gardner and Albert Patch.
- A jury found Roberts guilty of first-degree murder for both deaths.
- The jury also found true three special circumstances: prior murder, multiple murders, and murder by lying in wait.
- At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death for the murder of Gardner and life imprisonment without parole for the murder of Patch.
- The judgment of death triggered an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of California.
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 the death of a third person caused by the reflexive or irrational act of the defendant's initial victim, if the third person's death was not a foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of the defendant's original act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. A defendant is not criminally liable for the death of a third person resulting from the reactive conduct of the initial victim unless the death was a foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of the defendant's act. Principles of proximate cause require that the cause of harm must not be so remote as to fail to constitute a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act. The court reasoned that modern criminal law is founded on moral culpability, and imposing liability for remote and unforeseeable consequences does not serve the law's purpose. In this case, the trial court gave an instruction stating, 'It is immaterial that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen the harmful result.' This instruction improperly removed the essential element of foreseeability from the jury's consideration of proximate cause. Because the instruction essentially directed the jury to ignore whether Officer Patch's death was a foreseeable result of Roberts stabbing Gardner, it constituted a constitutional error that requires reversing Roberts's conviction for the murder of Patch.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the doctrine of proximate cause in California homicide law, particularly in cases involving an intervening act by the initial victim. By importing a foreseeability requirement similar to that in tort law, the court places a limit on criminal liability for remote or bizarre consequences of a defendant's actions. The holding establishes that even if a defendant's act is a 'but-for' cause of a death, liability will not attach if the chain of causation is so attenuated that the result was unforeseeable. This precedent requires juries in similar future cases to determine whether the ultimate harm was a 'natural and probable' consequence of the defendant's conduct, thereby linking criminal liability more closely to moral culpability.
