People v. Dawson - 172 Cal. App. 4th 1073, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (2009)

Rule:

A magistrate's function at a felony preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not there is sufficient cause to believe defendant guilty of the charged offense. Pen. Code, §§ 871, 872. The term "sufficient cause" means reasonable and probable cause, or a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. In performing this function, the magistrate may weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, and give or withhold credence to particular witnesses. A charge will not be dismissed for lack of probable cause if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.

Facts:

Defendant William Russell Dawson was charged with five crimes, two of which were felonies: vessel manslaughter while intoxicated and unlawful operation of a vessel while intoxicated resulting in bodily injury. The charges stemmed from the death of a passenger who, himself very intoxicated, jumped off the back of a boat as defendant put the boat in reverse. Following a preliminary hearing, the magistrate declined to hold defendant on the felony charges, finding that the passenger's act of jumping into the water was the cause of his death. On review pursuant to Pen. Code, § 871.5, the superior court declined to reinstate the charges, concluding that it was bound by the magistrate's factual finding that defendant did not cause the passenger's death. The People appealed, arguing that the magistrate misapplied the law of causation.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the magistrate misapply the law of causation? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court's order and judgment. The court determined that the magistrate, in finding a lack of probable cause under Pen. Code, §§ 871, 872, misapplied the law of causation. Although the magistrate addressed the question of whether the passenger's act was an unforeseeable intervening cause, a proximate cause analysis also required an inquiry into whether the passenger's act caused injury of a type that was foreseeable. The magistrate did not conduct such an inquiry. The court concluded that it was foreseeable that the passenger would end up in the water and that defendant had a responsibility toward him. Thus, it was error for the magistrate to refuse to hold defendant to answer, and it was error not to reinstate the charges.