CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome everyone to inside the badge. We delve deep into
understanding criminal law, so let's get started. The concept of

(01:03):
criminal liability for unintended consequences remains a complex and evolving
area of criminal law, particularly when applied to cases like
people versus Stamp and emerging issues such as charging drug
dealers for overdose deaths, which was seen recently. In People
versus Stamp, California nineteen sixty nine, the California Court of
Appeal upheld the felony murder conviction where robbery victims suffered

(01:23):
a fatal heart attack. The defendants, who did not directly
cause the death, argued the victims pre existing in their
condition was the primary factor. The court rejected it, applying
the felony murder rule, which holds perpetrators liable for any
death occurring during a dangerous felony, regardless of intent. This
case illustrates how the law imputes malice to felonious acts,

(01:43):
extending liability to unforeseen circumstances. In another similar case, people
versus Hickman in California nineteen seventy, it involved a defendant
whose robbery led to a police chase, during which an
officer accidentally killed a bystander. The court upheld the felony,
citing the proximate cause doctrine, which holds defendants liable for

(02:04):
deaths reasonably connected to their actions. These cases demonstrate the
broad reach of the felony murder liability, prioritizing deterrence over
strict causation. The application of similar principles to drug dealers
has gained traction in the recent years, particularly in responding
to the opioid crisis. In State Versus Barrage Buraage twenty fourteen,

(02:31):
the US Supreme Court addressed whether a drug dealer could
be held liable for a customer's overdose death under federal law.
The defendants sold heroin to a user who died after
combining it with other substances. The court overturned the conviction,
though ruling that the government failed to prove that the
heroin was the butt four cause of death. This decision
highlights the need for clear causation in overdose cases, limiting

(02:54):
liability when multiple factors contribute to the outcome. In contrast
and Commonwealth of US's vow On in twenty eighteen, the
Pennsylvania Court upheld the drug dealer's conviction for involuntary manslaughter
after supplying Fetla lead to a fatal overdose. The court
found that the dealers active disturbing I mean distributing the
drug approximately caused the death, reflecting a trend in the

(03:16):
US now in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio to charge
dealers with manslaughter or murder for overdose deaths. These cases
often rely on statutes like drug delivery resulting in death,
which mirror the felony murder strict liability approach. However, Commonwealth
versus Redline in nineteen fifty eight offers a counterpoint. The

(03:37):
Supreme Court in Pennsylvania overturned a felony murder conviction when
a co fell and was killed by police, arguing the
liability should not extend to death caused by third parties.
This restrained parallels concerns and overdose cases where factors like
the user's voluntary consumption were polydrug use complicate causation. In conclusion,

(03:57):
cases like Stamp Hickman Vaughan show criminal law extends liability
to unintended consequences, including overdose deaths. However, the Barrage and
Red Line underscored the need for clear causal links and
statutory limits so as jurisdictions increasingly target drug dealers, balancing
to terms with fairness remains a pretty tough challenge.