§702-214 Causal relationship between conduct and result.
382 words·~2 min read·
/hi/chapter-702/702-214A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
§702-214 Causal relationship between conduct and result. Conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §702-214
This section and the following three sections deal with the problem of causation, which is of critical importance in those offenses in which a particular result of conduct is an element. The difficulty of the problem of causation does not lie in making a determination of actual causation, but rather in setting the appropriate standard for determining those instances in which the defendant will not be held liable for the result of the defendant's conduct because the defendant did not intend or contemplate the result or was unaware of the risk that it would obtain.
The law has in some cases, under the inarticulate phrase "proximate cause," divorced the result of the defendant's conduct from the conduct because the defendant's state of mind with respect to the result would not allow the just imposition of liability. The four sections commencing here attempt a rational articulation of the factors which ought properly to be considered.
The section states the definition of actual causation. It is commonly called the "but-for" test. Once it is established that the defendant's conduct was the antecedent but for which the prohibited result would not have occurred, consideration of causality in its strict sense is finished and attention must then shift to §§702-215 and 216 which deal with the defendant's culpability with respect to the result. Section 702-217 deals with causation in offenses of absolute liability.
Hawaii law has previously not dealt directly with the problem of causation in the penal law context. However, in a case of murder, where the defendant claimed lack of intent on the basis that the victim was accidently killed when the victim stepped between the defendant and the intended victim, the court held that the defendant's intent was sufficient culpability.[1] A more sound rationale for the decision is supplied by §702-215; actual causation of the result having been established, the defendant will not be relieved of liability for an unintended result merely because another person, rather than the intended victim, was injured.
__________
§702-214 Commentary:
1. Territory v. Alcantara, 24 Haw. 197 (1918).