State v. Smith, 06ca2893 (4-17-2007)
2007 Ohio 1884 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's failure to medicate or properly care for themselves does not break the chain of legal causation for homicide if that failure is a foreseeable response to the injuries inflicted by the defendant. A responsive intervening act will only be considered a superseding cause if it is both abnormal and unforeseeable.
Facts:
- John Smith engaged in a verbal altercation with neighbors near a playground at an apartment complex.
- Bryan Biser attempted to intervene peacefully and de-escalate the argument.
- Smith punched Biser, who was not posturing to fight, once in the head with a closed fist.
- The punch knocked Biser unconscious; he fell, striking his head first on a parked car and then on the pavement.
- At the hospital, Biser, a known diabetic, refused a recommended CAT scan and treatment for his elevated blood sugar, stating he had insulin at home.
- Over the next three days, Biser appeared confused, apathetic, and complained of a headache, isolating himself from visitors.
- Four days after the assault, Biser was found unconscious in his apartment with an extremely high blood-glucose level due to not taking his insulin.
- Biser died at the hospital from severe diabetic ketoacidosis and necrotic bowels; an autopsy also revealed a skull fracture and brain hemorrhaging from the assault.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted John Smith on one count of felonious assault and one count of involuntary manslaughter.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Ross County Common Pleas Court, the court of first instance.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
- The trial court merged the two counts for sentencing and sentenced Smith to eight years in prison and ordered him to pay restitution.
- Smith, as Appellant, filed an appeal of his involuntary manslaughter conviction in the Ohio Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), with the State of Ohio as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a victim's failure to take his required diabetes medication constitute an unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of proximate cause for involuntary manslaughter, when expert testimony establishes that the failure was caused by apathy resulting from a brain injury inflicted by the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - McFarland, P.J.
No. A victim's failure to take his required medication is not an unforeseeable intervening event when the failure results from a mental state caused by the defendant's felonious assault. The court distinguishes between intervening acts that are a 'coincidence' and those that are a 'response' to the defendant's conduct. Biser's failure to take his insulin was a direct response to the head injury Smith inflicted, as expert testimony established the injury damaged his frontal lobes, causing apathy and an inability to care for himself. Under the law, a responsive intervening act only breaks the chain of causation if it is both abnormal and unforeseeable. Given the severity of Biser's head injuries, including a skull fracture and brain hemorrhaging, it was foreseeable that he might lose the ability to act rationally and properly care for himself. Therefore, Biser's conduct was not a superseding cause, and Smith's assault was the proximate cause of his death.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of proximate cause in criminal law, particularly regarding intervening acts by the victim. It reinforces the 'eggshell skull' or 'take your victim as you find him' rule, extending it to the psychological and cognitive consequences of an assault. The ruling establishes that a victim's self-neglect, if causally linked to the defendant's inflicted injury, is not a superseding cause, thereby holding assailants accountable for a broader range of foreseeable consequences flowing from their actions.
