State v. Lane
444 S.E.2d 233 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Foreseeability of death is not an element of proximate cause in a homicide case where the defendant intentionally inflicts a wound that ultimately causes the victim's death. A defendant's criminal responsibility is not lessened by a victim's pre-existing condition that makes them more susceptible to injury or by subsequent negligent medical care, unless that care was the sole cause of death.
Facts:
- The victim, Gregory Linton, was a chronic alcoholic.
- The defendant intentionally hit Linton in or around the head.
- At the time of the assault, Linton was highly intoxicated.
- After the assault, police took Linton into custody.
- Linton later died from a blunt force injury to the head, specifically a swollen brain resulting from a subdural hematoma.
- The medical examiner testified that chronic alcoholics are more susceptible to brain swelling and subdural hematomas than non-drinkers.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the state trial court.
- At trial, the defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence was denied.
- The trial court denied the defendant's requested jury instruction and instructed the jury without a foreseeability element in the definition of proximate cause.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing insufficiency of evidence and error in the jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a homicide case arising from an intentional assault, must the trial court instruct the jury that death must be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act for the act to be the proximate cause of death?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, C.J.
No. In a homicide case where a wound is intentionally inflicted, foreseeability is not an element of proximate cause. The crucial question is whether the defendant's unlawful act proximately caused the death, not whether death was a natural and probable or foreseeable result of that act. The court distinguished cases involving intentionally inflicted wounds from those based on culpable negligence (e.g., a hunting accident or drunk driving), where an instruction on foreseeability is required. Furthermore, the court affirmed two related principles: first, under the 'eggshell skull' rule, a defendant takes the victim as they find them, and a pre-existing condition (like Linton's alcoholism) that makes the victim more vulnerable does not excuse or lessen the defendant's criminal responsibility. Second, any subsequent negligence by the police in failing to seek timely medical attention would not be a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation unless it was the sole cause of death, which the evidence did not support here.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the distinction in North Carolina homicide law between deaths resulting from intentional acts versus those from culpable negligence. It affirms that for intentional assaults causing death, the proximate cause analysis does not include a foreseeability requirement, thereby strengthening the 'take your victim as you find them' doctrine. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for defendants who commit an assault to escape homicide liability by arguing that the death was an unforeseeable result of the victim's unique vulnerability or of subsequent, non-fatal negligence by third parties. The decision narrows the scope of the foreseeability defense in cases of intentional violence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Lane