United States v. Hamilton
182 F. Supp. 548 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who inflicts a serious injury that starts a chain of causation leading to death is guilty of homicide, even if the victim's own subsequent negligent or intentional act contributes to or hastens the death.
Facts:
- On the evening of December 2, 1959, Benjamin E. Hamilton and John W. Slye were at a poolroom where they drank intoxicating beverages and got into an acrimonious quarrel.
- After being asked to leave, the two men went outside and began to fight on the street.
- During the fight, Hamilton knocked Slye to the ground.
- While Slye was lying on the ground, Hamilton jumped on his face and kicked him in the head with his shod feet, inflicting severe injuries.
- Slye was taken to a hospital where medical staff inserted tubes into his nasal passages and trachea to maintain his breathing.
- Hours later, after having a convulsion, Slye pulled the breathing tubes out with his own hands.
- Slye died shortly after removing the tubes.
- An autopsy determined the cause of death was asphyxiation due to the inhalation of blood resulting from the severe facial injuries Hamilton had inflicted.
Procedural Posture:
- Benjamin E. Hamilton was indicted on a charge of murder in the second degree.
- The case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a trial court.
- The defendant waived his right to a jury trial.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial before the court.
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 own affirmative act that hastens their death, such as removing life-sustaining medical equipment, constitute an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of criminal liability for homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Holtzoff, District Judge
No. A victim's own act that hastens death does not break the chain of legal causation if the act is a direct result of the injury inflicted by the defendant. The court reasoned that under well-established common law principles, a defendant is responsible for a death that results from a chain of causation they initiated, even if the victim neglects to seek proper care. The court extended this principle from mere neglect to an affirmative act by the victim, stating that it was unnecessary to determine if the victim's act of pulling out the breathing tubes was conscious or a reflex. Citing persuasive authority like People v. Lewis, where a victim hastened his own death after being mortally wounded, the court found that Hamilton's unlawful act created the physical condition and the desperate state of mind that led to the victim removing the tubes. Therefore, the injuries inflicted by Hamilton were the proximate cause of Slye's death, making Hamilton liable for homicide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and arguably expands the doctrine of proximate cause in homicide cases. It clarifies that the chain of causation is not broken even by an affirmative, life-ending act of the victim, so long as that act is a direct consequence of the physical or mental state induced by the defendant's initial assault. The ruling establishes a high bar for a defendant to claim that a supervening act absolves them of responsibility, solidifying the principle that one who initiates a dangerous chain of events is responsible for its natural and probable consequences. This makes it more difficult for defendants to escape homicide liability by pointing to the victim's subsequent conduct.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hamilton