The issue of causation is an important consideration in many Pennsylvania criminal cases. In the case of Commonwealth v. Smith, 1976 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 319 (Pa. C.P. 1976), defendant was indicted on charges regarding an arson fire. Defendant was charged with arson and felony murder, a second-degree felony, based on the arson because a fireman died of a heart attack while fighting the fire. The fireman suffered the heart attack at the arson scene and died in the hospital.
Pennsylvania law provides that criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second-degree if the death of the victim occurs while a defendant is engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the commission of a felony (arson). The limitations of the felony murder rule require certain degrees of causation between a defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death, and the felony has to be an inherently dangerous one. Arson is a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life. The pivotal issue in the Smith case was causation. Two pathologists testified as to the cause of the fireman’s heart attack. The court found defendant not guilty of felony murder insufficient evidence was produced to prove a causal connection between the arson and the death beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth provided medical evidence that only met the standard of proof for the admission of a medical opinion regarding the cause of death. The causal connection between the arson and the death was probably established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty but not beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found defendant not guilty of murder of the second-degree.
In the context of a felony murder charge, there is a critical distinction between the standard for admitting medical opinion as evidence and proof of legal causation. In short, to permit medical evidence as to the cause of death, it must be shown the witness entertained a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” for his conclusions. The expert opinion along with other evidence, however, must warrant the finding of the cause of death “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Briefly, a defendant’s actions are the legal cause of death if they are a direct and substantial factor in bringing it about. This is a stricter test than the “proximate cause” test of tort law, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The failure of the government to establish causation beyond a reasonable doubt was a valid defense in this felony murder case that permitted the defendant to avoid conviction on very serious charges. This case also shows the importance of the extremely high level of burden of proof in criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania. The prosecutor must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the most demanding burden of proof in any legal case.
If you are charged with a criminal offense in Pittsburgh or anywhere in Pennsylvania, Michael V. Worgul puts the Commonwealth through its paces insisting that every element be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania, Michael V. Worgul, a Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney, may be able to help you as he has hundreds of other Pennsylvania residents. Call us today at 412-475-9217 to see how we can help.
