Opinion ID: 2638727
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Criminal Standard for Superseding Cause

Text: ¶ 10 At trial, Bass argued that Farrell improperly attempted a lane change and should have been aware that she, Bass, occupied the right-hand lane. Bass asserted that were it not for Farrell's action, crossing the line, she would not have taken evasive action, swerving right, hitting the curb, and spinning out of control into traffic. Bass alternatively alleged that even while her car was riding the curb, she was in control and that it was not until passenger Ochoa grabbed the steering wheel that the car careened into oncoming traffic. She claims that each of these intervening events was a superseding cause that broke the chain of causation and excused all criminal liability for her actions. ¶ 11 The trial court gave a jury instruction on superseding cause, substantially similar to the one requested by Bass, stating that an intervening event becomes a legal excuse, i.e., a superseding cause only when its occurrence was both unforeseeable and when with benefit of hindsight it may be described as abnormal or extraordinary. ¶ 12 Relying on a distinction first drawn in State v. Hall, 129 Ariz. 589, 594, 633 P.2d 398, 403 (1981), and applied most recently by the court of appeals in State v. Jansing, 186 Ariz. 63, 66, 918 P.2d 1081, 1084 (App.1996), Bass argues that this jury instruction was incorrect for failing to differentiate between coincidental intervening acts and responsive intervening acts. The Hall/Jansing line of criminal cases adopted separate standards for the two types of intervening events. Under that line, courts conclude that if the intervening event in question was in response to something defendant put in motion, as when Ochoa felt compelled to grab the steering wheel, it would need to be unforeseeable as well as abnormal or extraordinary in order to excuse liability. Where the intervening event was merely coincidental to defendant's actions, as in Farrell's lane change, it could be found superseding if merely unforeseeable. ¶ 13 We find this distinction strained and see no logical basis for continuing to employ a different standard in our criminal law for events that are merely coincidental. We thus dispense with the dichotomy and expressly hold, as to superseding cause, that any prior distinction between coincidental and responsive events is eliminated. Our criminal standard for superseding cause will henceforth be the same as our tort standard. See Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair and Rodeo Ass'n, Inc., 177 Ariz. 256, 866 P.2d 1342 (1994) (an event is superseding only if unforeseeable and, with benefit of hindsight, abnormal or extraordinary). To the extent that Arizona case law differs from this standard and from our holding today, we overrule it. ¶ 14 We hold the trial court's written jury instruction on superseding cause set forth the proper standard by which to determine when an intervening event becomes superseding. There are no grounds for reversal on the written jury instruction.