State v. Shabazz

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Volume 748 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Grossly negligent medical treatment constitutes a defense to homicide only in the exceptional case where that maltreatment is the sole cause of the victim's death. If the defendant inflicted a wound that was a substantial factor in the victim's death, the defendant remains criminally liable even if subsequent medical negligence contributed to the death.

Facts:

On May 3, 1994, Michael Stewart and Abdullah Shabazz were involved in an altercation at a bank of pay telephones on the New Haven green.
The altercation began when Stewart told Shabazz to get off the phone and then slapped Shabazz in the face.
A fistfight ensued, during which Shabazz produced a switchblade knife.
Shabazz held Stewart so he could not escape and repeatedly stabbed him.
After Stewart collapsed to the ground, Shabazz sat on top of him and continued to stab him until a police officer arrived.
Stewart was transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital.
Approximately twelve hours after the stabbing, Stewart died at the hospital.
An autopsy determined that Stewart died as a result of stab wounds to his chest and abdomen.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant, Abdullah Shabazz, was charged with murder.
Before his first trial, the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony that the hospital's gross negligence caused the victim's death.
The state filed a motion in limine to preclude this evidence.
The trial court (Fracasse, J.) held a hearing and granted the state's motion to exclude the evidence.
A mistrial was declared in the first proceeding after the defendant failed to appear.
At the defendant's second trial, the court (Licari, J.) adopted the prior ruling excluding the evidence as the law of the case.
The jury found the defendant guilty of murder.
The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

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 that a hospital's gross negligence contributed to a victim's death admissible to serve as an intervening cause that relieves a defendant of criminal liability for murder, when the defendant's initial assault inflicted wounds that would have been fatal without treatment?

Opinions:

Majority - Borden, J.

No. Evidence of gross medical negligence is not admissible as an intervening cause of death unless that negligence was the sole cause of death. The court reaffirmed the rule from State v. Jacobs, which holds that where death ensues from a dangerous wound, it is ordinarily no defense that unskilled or negligent medical treatment aggravated the injury. The defendant's own expert witnesses conceded that the stab wounds inflicted by the defendant would have been fatal in the absence of any medical treatment. Therefore, the hospital's purported gross negligence could only have been a contributing cause of death, not the sole cause, which is insufficient to break the chain of legal causation. The court distinguished State v. Munoz, noting it did not involve medical negligence and involved a factual dispute over whether the defendant's actions inflicted a fatal wound at all. The court concluded that sound public policy prevents a defendant who has committed a homicidal act from escaping criminal liability simply because the victim's subsequent medical care was also negligent.

Dissenting - Berdon, J.

This opinion would answer the issue 'Yes.' The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly applies a 'sole proximate cause' standard derived from dicta in State v. Jacobs. The proper standard, established in State v. Munoz, is whether the third party's conduct was an 'efficient, intervening cause' that supersedes the defendant's conduct. The proffered expert testimony about the hospital's gross negligence—failing to monitor the victim, administering anticoagulants, and not discovering a wound—was sufficient for a jury to find that it was an efficient, intervening cause of death. By precluding this evidence, the trial court unconstitutionally removed the element of causation from the jury's consideration and violated the defendant's right to present a defense.

Dissenting - Katz, J.

This opinion does not directly address the principal issue regarding medical negligence but dissents from Part III of the majority opinion. The dissent argues that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding expert testimony that the victim was likely to have behaved violently due to being under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the altercation. This evidence was relevant and admissible to support the defendant's claim of self-defense, specifically on the contested issues of whether the victim remained the aggressor and whether the defendant's use of deadly force was justified. The exclusion of this critical evidence caused the defendant substantial prejudice, warranting a new trial.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies a high bar for a defendant asserting an intervening cause defense based on medical malpractice in Connecticut. By reaffirming the 'sole cause' standard from State v. Jacobs, the court significantly limits the ability of defendants to shift legal responsibility for a death to subsequent medical providers. The ruling clarifies that even gross medical negligence will not break the chain of causation if the defendant's initial act was a substantial and operative cause of death. This case provides a clear, bright-line rule for proximate cause in homicide prosecutions involving subsequent medical care, making it difficult for such defenses to succeed unless the initial wound was demonstrably non-fatal.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Shabazz (1994)

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