State v. Block - 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992)

Rule:

The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that defendant's acts are a substantial factor in causing the victim's death, not that they are the sole cause. Thus, any medical negligence in connection with procedures undertaken in response to a life-threatening situation created by the defendant does not break the chain of causation even though that negligence may contribute to the victim's death.

Facts:

Defendant, Damone John Block, stabbed his grandmother. She died several months later, after undergoing three operations. According to the surgeons who treated her, the stabbing was a substantial factor in causing her death. Defendant, however, argued that negligence by the victim's treating physicians caused her death. At trial, the jury was not sworn until six witnesses had testified for the State. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and unlawful possession of cocaine. Defendant appealed his convictions on the grounds that the trial court's failure to swear the jury prior to the receipt of evidence required a mistrial and its error in instructing the jury on the effect of alleged medical malpractice on his responsibility for the victim's death. Defendant's convictions were affirmed. 

Issue:

Was the defendant guilty of murder and unlawful possession of cocaine?

Answer:

Yes. Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder and unlawful possession of cocaine were affirmed.

Conclusion:

The court held that the failure to timely swears in the jury did not warrant a reversal because there was no prejudice to the defendant and that any medical negligence in connection with procedures undertaken in response to a life-threatening situation created by the defendant did not break the chain of causation even though that negligence may have contributed to the victim's death. The court also stated that the trial court's instruction regarding the defendant's intervening cause accurately stated the law because the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that defendant's acts were a substantial factor in causing the victim's death, not that they were the sole cause.