Opinion ID: 154635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Swallow’s proposed instructions

Text: Mr. Swallow further argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to give two proposed instructions. The first proposed instruction characterizes an independent intervening cause as the unforeseeable gross negligence of a third party that relieves the defendant of responsibility for the death of the victim. Rec. Supp. vol. I, Proposed Jury Instruction A (citing People v. Gentry, 738 P.2d 1188 (Colo. 1987); United States v. Guillette, 547 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1976)). The second proposed instruction defines gross negligence as “knowledge of a situation requiring the exercise of ordinary 8 care and diligence to avert injury to another, the ability to avoid the resulting harm by ordinary care and diligence . . . and the omission to use such care and diligence to avert the threat and danger when . . . it must be apparent that the result is likely to prove disastrous to another.” Rec. Supp. vol. I, Proposed Jury Instruction B (citing People v. Sealey, 356 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)). First, after careful examination of the record, we agree with the district court that there simply was no evidence of gross negligence by the rescue squad. As the district court stated, there was no “evidence presented by the defense on their defense that the conduct of the officers was so deficient as to raise their conduct to a level of gross negligence.” Rec. vol. XII, at 18-19. Moreover, the requested instruction provided that the defendant would be relieved of responsibility for the deaths only if he did not participate in the intervening cause. The record established that the defendant participated in the intervening cause. By refusing to surrender, he was a cause of the rescue squad’s delay in reaching the victims. Mr. Swallow was not entitled to the requested instruction. Additionally, although the district court allowed him to present evidence in support of his theory of intervening cause, Mr. Swallow presented no evidence to rebut the government expert’s findings that Cleo and Ethan bled to death as a result of the gunshot wounds. An instruction as to intervening cause is not proper absent evidence to sustain it. See State v. Cole, 154 S.E.2d 506, 511 (N.C. 1967) (citing 26 Am. Jur. Homicide § 533 9 (1940)); see also Carlston v. United States, 671 F. Supp. 1324, 1326 (D.N.M. 1987) (holding in a civil context, “[w]hen reasonable minds cannot differ on the issue of intervening cause, the matter can be decided as one of law”). Mr. Swallow introduced no expert testimony that indicated the wounds were not dangerous or calculated to produce death. See Baylor v. United States, 407 A.2d 664, 669 (D.C. 1979) (stating “[o]rdinarily expert medical testimony will be required to show that the wound was not dangerous or calculated to produce death”). Thus, the court correctly found that defendant’s evidence failed to support a submission of any instruction regarding intervening cause to the jury. See State v. Soucy, 653 A.2d 561, 563-64 (N.H. 1995) (stating “if some evidence is offered, . . . which is reasonably calculated to provide a reasonable doubt on the issue of causation, it must be admitted and the element of causation, with the supported defense, must be submitted to the jury”). Finally, even if we were to accept Mr. Swallow’s invitation to analogize to tort law, he would not prevail, because we are here concerned with a negative act. See Aplt.’s Br. at 14-15. Professors Perkins and Boyce insightfully note that “[i]t has seemed important to recognize the possibility of a negative act being superseding in a civil case, but even there this applies only in very exceptional situations which seem to have no counterpart in criminal cases.” Perkins & Boyce, supra at 819-20 (presenting the following illustration: Automobile negligently driven by A strikes B, leaving B unconscious on the highway, bleeding to death. C, a passing motorist, stops and surveys 10 the situation, and drives on without rendering aid to B. B bleeds to death. “Regardless of whether C is under any duty to B to render such aid, his failure to do so is not a superseding cause which will relieve A of liability for [B’s death].”) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). The Restatement of Torts similarly indicates that the mere existence of an unperformed duty does not rise to a superseding cause that can break the causal chain. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 452, cmt. c, illus. 4 (1965). Furthermore, “[i]n cases involving death from injuries inflicted in an assault, courts have uniformly held that the person who inflicted the injury will be liable for the death despite the failure of third persons to save the victim.” Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957, 959 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984) (citing Wright v. State, 374 A.2d 824, 829 (Del. 1977); Pettigrew v. State, 554 P.2d 1186, 1193 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1976); People v. McGee, 187 P.2d 706, 714-15 (Cal. 1947)). Thus, Mr. Swallow’s analogy to tort law itself collapses. In conclusion, the record does not support the issuance of Mr. Swallow’s proposed instructions. Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to give Mr. Swallow’s proposed instructions on intervening cause and gross negligence. Mr. Swallow’s convictions for second-degree murder are affirmed. 11