People v. Cable, 652 N.E.2d 919 (N.Y. 1995)
A defendant is criminally liable for the death of a victim if their conduct was a contributory cause, even if a subsequent event also contributed to the death, provided the initial conduct was a sufficiently direct cause.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for manslaughter, holding that his assault on the victim was a contributory cause of her death, despite a physician’s subsequent removal of her breathing tube. The court emphasized that the defendant failed to properly preserve the issue of superseding cause for appeal. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that the defendant’s actions directly contributed to the victim’s death. Because the defendant did not object to the jury instructions or move for dismissal on the grounds of superseding cause before the jury deliberated, his appellate argument was not properly preserved for review.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal trespass in the second degree after severely beating the victim. As a result of the beating, the victim was comatose and placed on life support. Subsequently, at the direction of the victim’s family, a physician removed her breathing tube, leading to her death.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted by a jury. He then moved to set aside the manslaughter conviction, arguing that the physician’s removal of the breathing tube was a superseding cause that relieved him of liability. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the physician’s removal of the breathing tube from the comatose victim constituted a superseding cause that relieved the defendant of criminal liability for manslaughter, where the defendant’s initial assault contributed to the victim’s condition.
Holding
No, because the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by objecting to the jury instructions or moving for dismissal on the basis of superseding cause before the case was submitted to the jury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, but primarily on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that the defendant never objected to the trial court’s omission of the superseding cause issue in its jury charge, nor did he move to dismiss on that basis before the case was submitted to the jury. According to the court, “Defendant did not preserve the argument by raising it, for the first time, in his motion to set aside the verdict.” The court cited CPL 470.05 [2] and People v. Robinson, 88 NY2d 1000, 1002, noting that the defendant’s objection was therefore unreviewable. While the Appellate Division addressed the merits, finding overwhelming evidence that the defendant’s conduct was an actual contributory cause of death (citing Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 280), the Court of Appeals avoided ruling on the merits of the superseding cause argument due to the lack of preservation. The court’s decision underscores the importance of raising objections and motions at the appropriate time during trial to preserve issues for appellate review. The court implied that, procedurally, the initial determination of causation rests on establishing that the defendant’s actions were a contributory factor in the victim’s death. Any arguments related to superseding causes must be timely raised to be considered.