State v. Block
1992 Wisc. App. LEXIS 565, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inadvertent delay in administering the jury oath does not necessitate a mistrial or reversal if the oath is administered prior to jury deliberations and the defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice. Furthermore, medical negligence contributing to a victim's death following a defendant's infliction of a potentially mortal wound does not break the chain of causation if the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in producing the death.
Facts:
- On October 5, 1987, Damone John Block stabbed his 73-year-old grandmother, Perlean Stewart.
- Between the day she was stabbed and December 24, 1987, Stewart was hospitalized three times and underwent three operations.
- Stewart died on December 24, 1987, from a pulmonary embolism.
- Surgeons who treated Stewart testified that the stabbing was a substantial factor in causing her death.
- Block contended that alleged negligence by Stewart's treating physicians, rather than the stabbing, caused her death.
Procedural Posture:
- Damone John Block was charged and convicted of second-degree murder and unlawful possession of cocaine in a Wisconsin trial court.
- Block appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin 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:
Is a criminal conviction reversible due to the trial court's inadvertent delay in administering the jury oath until after six witnesses testified, but before deliberations, without a showing of prejudice by the defendant; and was the trial court's instruction on causation, stating that medical negligence contributing to a victim's death does not break the chain of causation if the defendant's acts were a substantial factor, an impermissible direction to the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - FINE, J.
No, a criminal conviction is not reversible under these circumstances. The court found that the inadvertent delay in administering the jury oath, which was corrected before deliberations, did not warrant reversal because Block failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. The jury oath is an integral element of the right to an impartial jury, but numerous courts have held similar errors to be harmless when the oath is administered during trial but before deliberations, and no prejudice is shown. Block also did not realize the jury had not been sworn. Furthermore, the trial court's instruction on causation was not error. The court has broad discretion in instructing the jury to fairly inform them of the law. The instruction accurately stated the law that the prosecution only needs to prove the defendant's acts were a 'substantial factor' in causing death, not the sole cause, and that medical negligence in response to a life-threatening situation created by the defendant does not break the chain of causation even if it 'contributed' to the victim's death, citing Cranmore v. State. The instruction merely assisted the jury in analyzing the evidence and did not impermissibly direct them to a particular conclusion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that procedural errors, specifically concerning the timing of the jury oath, may not warrant reversal if they are rectified before prejudice arises and if the defendant cannot demonstrate actual harm. It clarifies and solidifies the legal standard for causation in homicide cases, establishing that intervening medical negligence does not necessarily break the chain of causation if the defendant's initial actions were a substantial factor in the death. The ruling limits the grounds for appealing jury instructions by emphasizing the trial court's broad discretion, provided the instructions accurately state the law and do not impermissibly direct the jury's findings.
