 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Hallett
S. Ct. Utah, 1980
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: One evening after drinking a group of individuals set out in mischief. Df and another bent over, parallel to the ground, three stop signs at intersections.The next morning, Kim Limacher, en route for church struck Betty Carley’s vehicle. Carley’s vehicle did not stop b/c the sign was no longer visible. Carley died as a result. Df was initially charged with manslaughter.
Issue: Whether the Df’s act of removing a stop sign was done with malicious intent, with the result foreseeable, which created a perilous situation ending in death?
Holding: Yes
Procedure: Trail ct guilty verdict for negligent homicide a class A misdemeanor.
Rule: Proximate Cause - the cause which through its natural and foreseeable consequence, unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause, produces an injury which would not otherwise occurred.
Ct Rationale: The df’s conduct created a perilous situation, thereby his actions can properly be found to be the proximate cause of a resulting injury, even though later events combined to cause the injury. So long as the later event is something which can reasonably be expected to follow in a natural sequence. Df removed the stop signs from visible view. The victim and another collided as a natural consequence resulting from the legal indicator of an impending hazard.
Minority - The relationship between the act of Df and the death of the victim is a necessary element of the offense. The injury arose from the operation of an unforeseeable, independent intervening force. Df’s conduct was a remote cause. The proximate cause must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as it is an element of the crime.
PL A: The removal of the stop signs was a foreseeable risk of injury or death to others.
Def A: The evidence does not support the conclusion that Df’s acts were the proximate cause of Carley’s death.