Facts
The defendants, Barry and Roy Krall, met the victim, George Stafford, during the winter in a bar. In the course of their meeting, the defendants realized that Stafford was intoxicated and had lots of money. Unluckily, Stafford asked the defendants who had already put a plan of robbing him, to give him a ride. They boarded Kibbe’s car and drove off towards Canandaigua. While Krall was driving, Kibbe was busy roughing Stafford up. Kibbe slapped Stafford severally with the aim of getting all the money he had. In order to make sure he had no additional money with him, Kibbe asked Stafford to take his shoes off and lower his trousers. When they were contended that Stafford had no more money, Kibbe forcefully chucked Stafford out of the car (Singer and Fond 583).
Stafford was chucked out landing on the shoulder of the bucolic two-lane highway with his shirt still rolled up to his chest and trousers still lowered to his ankles. Stafford had no outer clothing nor shoes. Before Kibbe and Krall left, they left his jacket and shoes on the highway’s shoulder. Stafford normally wore glasses but after being mishandled by Kibbe he left them in Kibbe’s car. The defendants then drove off either purposely or inadvertently without handing the glasses to Stafford. Coincidentally, at that time, 10:00 pm, Michael W. Blake was driving at a rational speed on the same highway. He saw Stafford standing in the middle of the road, with hands in the air. However, he could not stop the car in time, he knocked down Stafford, leading to his death (Singer and Fond 583).
Issue
Were the defendant legally responsible for Stafford’s death? Holding
YesReasoning
The actions of Kibbe and Krall of leaving a helpless intoxicated person without his eye glasses in a situation where he could defend himself from the rudiments are the proximal cause of the Stafford death. It was rationally foreseeable that leaving the victim, who was blind since he did not wear his eyeglasses, and drunk, in the middle of the highway could get knocked down by a car.
On the part of Blake, he was driving on low beam since two cars were approaching and the highway had no lighting. As a result, he could not control the car when he saw Stafford. Blake operated the car in a reasonable way, he was not driving at high speeds and did not expect anyone on the road since there were no houses at the point.
The court argued in support of the ruling that the defendants’ acts coupled with Blakes’ operation of his automobile resulted in the death of a helpless drunk individual. As the court asserted whenever distinct acts of negligence come together leading to a single injury, each party is legally responsible the overall outcome.
As a result, the court ruled that the actions of the defendants do not have to be direct cause of the death of the victim for them to be held liable. It also noted that since the actions of the defendants initiate a sequence of events resulting in the death of the victim, they are legally responsible for his death. In applying these conditions on the actions of the defendants, the court conclude that they were adequately direct cause of Stafford’s death thus warranted the burden of criminal sanctions. The defendants were found guilty of murder, third degree grand larceny and second degree robbery.
Dissenting
All the judges affirmed the charges, holding the previous ruling.
Opinion
I find the case to be instructive. In the case, an evidence is causation is determined to be substantially direct since the death of the victim was rationally foreseeable consequence the actions of the defendants. This puts the conduct of the defendant directly linked to the victim. This cases presents a foundation to the determination of various cases, involving the death of a victim as a result of the accused’s actions.
Work cited
Singer, Richard G, and Fond J. Q. La. Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010. Print
