People v. Schmies

California Court of Appeal
51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 44 Cal. App. 4th 38 (1996)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

In a criminal prosecution involving a death caused during a police pursuit, the test for causation is whether the officers' response was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct, not whether the officers' specific actions were reasonable or violated internal police policies.

Facts:

California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Fetch attempted to stop defendant Schmies, who was riding a motorcycle on Interstate 5.
Schmies refused to yield and accelerated to speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour, initiating a high-speed pursuit.
Officer Homen joined the pursuit in a separate patrol car as the chase moved from the freeway to surface streets.
Schmies drove recklessly through residential areas, ignoring stop signs, red lights, and crossing double yellow lines to evade capture.
Schmies drove through an intersection, and Officer Fetch followed him.
Jane Abbett, a civilian driver, entered the intersection and was struck broadside by Officer Homen's pursuing patrol car.
Abbett was killed in the collision, and Officer Homen sustained injuries.
Schmies continued to flee the scene and hid his motorcycle in a wooded area before being arrested.

Procedural Posture:

The state charged the defendant with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, and reckless driving causing great bodily injury.
Before trial, the defendant moved to discover CHP pursuit policies and introduce expert testimony regarding the 'reasonableness' of the officers' conduct.
The trial court denied the motion and excluded evidence regarding the reasonableness of the officers' actions and the pursuit guidelines, ruling only 'foreseeability' was relevant.
A jury acquitted the defendant of second-degree murder.
The jury convicted the defendant of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and reckless driving causing great bodily injury.
The defendant appealed the convictions to the Court of Appeal, challenging the exclusion of the evidence regarding the officers' conduct.

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 evidence regarding the reasonableness of pursuing officers' conduct or their compliance with departmental policies admissible to prove a superseding intervening cause in a prosecution for vehicular manslaughter resulting from a police chase?

Opinions:

Majority - Acting Presiding Justice Sparks

No. The court affirmed that evidence of the officers' reasonableness is inadmissible because the proper inquiry regarding causation is the reasonable foreseeability of the pursuit from the defendant's perspective. The court reasoned that in criminal law, the negligence of a third party (including the police) is not a defense unless it serves as a superseding cause. A superseding cause must be an act that is so extraordinary and abnormal that it is unforeseeable. The court distinguished between the concept of 'reasonableness'—which focuses on whether the officers were at fault or blameworthy (relevant in a civil tort suit against the police)—and 'foreseeability'—which focuses on whether the defendant could anticipate the police response. Since it is reasonably foreseeable that police will pursue a fleeing suspect, and that such pursuit carries inherent dangers, the officers' conduct was a dependent intervening cause, not a superseding one. The court analogized this to a bank robber whose actions cause a guard to shoot; the robber cannot claim the guard's violation of firing rules relieves the robber of liability for a bystander's death. Therefore, whether the officers violated CHP pursuit guidelines was irrelevant to the defendant's criminal liability.

Analysis:

People v. Schmies provides a critical distinction between civil tort liability and criminal causation. It reinforces the principle that criminal defendants are responsible for the natural and probable consequences of their actions, even when a third party (like the police) contributes to the result through negligence. By ruling that police 'reasonableness' is irrelevant to the defendant's guilt, the court prevents criminal trials from becoming referendums on police tactics. The decision places the burden of the dangerous situation squarely on the fleeing suspect who initiated the chain of events. This case establishes that unless the police response is 'wholly abnormal' or 'bizarre,' the chain of causation remains intact.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Schmies (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"