Kusmider v state 688

The bullet entered Villella's neck above the Adam's apple. Two of the counts charged Malone with assault against the police officer and against the motorist. Maki and David Mannheimer, Asst. Williamson's left leg was broken above the ankle.

On appeal, Kusmider does not argue that the trial court's exclusion of evidence relating to proximate cause infringed in any way on the jury's ability to determine actual cause.

This rule of law that negligence of the victim or of third persons will not dispel a defendant's responsibility for an injury or death is simply a specific application of the general rule that a defendant who acts with the required culpable mental state will be held criminally responsible for injuries that result from other people's normal or foreseeable reactions to his conduct.

This is true only in situations in which the second act of negligence looms so large in comparison with the first that the first is not to be regarded as a substantial factor in the final result. Here, Kusmider did not claim that the conduct of the paramedics inflicted any In cases involving death from injuries inflicted in an assault, courts have uniformally 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

During the chase, a police car collided with a vehicle driven by another motorist; both the officer and the motorist were injured. Kusmider did not argue that he could demonstrate gross negligence or recklessness, nor did he contend that the circumstances surrounding Villella's death were unforeseeable.

The one exception is for police "authorized emergency vehicles". En route to the hospital, however, Villella began flailing his arms and pulled the tube from his throat. The petitioner brought two issues to the fore.

Thomas Kusmider was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, AS In it, the petitioner sought to convince the court to aver that it was against the Alaskan and American Constitutions to prosecute individuals whose Fourth Amendment rights had suffered a violation.

Homework Help - Post Questions, Assignments & Papers

The superior court threw out the two charges against Malone because the prosecutor had failed to explain the doctrine of "superseding cause" to the grand jury. Similarly, the asserted negligence of third parties is no defense. On November 15,Kusmider's girlfriend told Kusmider that an acquaintance, Arthur Villella, had sexually assaulted her.

In fact, Alaska law expressly imposes this duty of care upon police officers driving patrol cars in emergency situations. A criminal defendant can be held responsible only for injuries that "result from" or are "caused by" his conduct.

Kusmider v. State

The provisions of this section do not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle or a vehicle displaying a flashing blue light from the duty to drive with regard for the safety of all persons, nor do the provisions of this section allow the driver of a vehicle displaying a flashing blue light to proceed past a stop sign or red signal without first stopping.

Because the evidence proffered by Kusmider could not, as a matter of law, have established a break in the chain of proximate causation, we hold that Judge Johnstone did not err in excluding this evidence from trial. On appeal, Kusmider does not argue that the trial court's exclusion of evidence relating to proximate cause infringed in any way on the jury's ability to determine actual cause.

Judge Hodges granted Malone's motion to dismiss the two charges. Malone, fleeing from a traffic stop, led police on a high-speed chase through Fairbanks. Visit Touch N' Go's Website.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we are convinced that, at the time of trial, Kusmider did not even suggest that he could prove gross negligence or recklessness on the part of the paramedics.

It does not appear to us that the Department of Public Safety intended to have the application of this right-of-way rule hinge on whether a police department chooses to exercise its option under 13 AAC Case law and commentators agree that, when death is occasioned by negligent medical treatment of an assault victim, the Page original assailant ordinarily remains criminally liable for the death, even if it can be shown that the injuries inflicted in the assault were survivable; under such circumstances, proximate cause is not interrupted unless the medical treatment given to the injured person was grossly negligent and unforeseeable.

Interpretation of these provisions requires knowledge of how 13 AAC defines "authorized emergency vehicle" and "vehicle displaying a flashing blue light". Judge Johnstone precluded Kusmider from pursuing the issue of proximate cause before the jury.

Case law and commentators agree that, when death is occasioned by negligent medical treatment of an assault victim, the Page original assailant ordinarily remains criminally liable for the death, even if it can be shown that the injuries inflicted in the assault were survivable; under such circumstances, proximate cause is not interrupted unless the medical treatment given to the injured person was grossly negligent and unforeseeable.

State, P.2d(Alaska ). Of course, in every criminal case the state must establish and the jury must find that the defendant's conduct was the actual cause, or cause-in-fact, of the crime charged in the indictment.

State v. Malone

See State v. Soucy, N.H.A.2d() (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”).

Opinion for Kusmider v. State, P.2d — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

Kusmider's limited offer of proof thus precludes his argument that he was not allowed to establish gross negligence.

[3] Cf. State v. Hills, P.2d(Ariz.

KUSMIDER v. STATE

) (en banc) (defendant will not be held responsible for new injuries that occur during treatment but are coincidental and unrelated to the original injuries for which. F. 3d 97 CJ C.A.R. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lee SWALLOW, Defendant-Appellant.

State v. Malone

No. See also Kusmider v. State, P.2d(Alaska App. ). Since a defendant's conduct need not be the sole cause of the injury, a defendant will be held accountable for an injury or death resulting from his conduct even though it can be shown that the negligence of some other person also contributed in a substantial degree to.

Kusmider v state 688
Rated 3/5 based on 84 review
State v. Malone (9/6/91) ap