2010AP798-CR State v. Below

Listen to this article

1st-degree reckless homicide
Intervening cause

Termination of life support is not a defense to homicide.

Under Wisconsin law, whether the intervening act was negligent, intentional and/or legally wrongful is irrelevant.  The analysis is the same.

The State must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s acts were a substantial factor in producing the death.  Therefore, the trial court’s denial of Below’s motion, including the intervening cause instruction, was altogether proper.  Even if Below could have established that the termination of Madison’s life support was ‘wrongful’ under Wisconsin law, that wrongful act would not break the chain of causation between Below’s actions and Madison’s subsequent death.  We are satisfied that the trial court’s well-reasoned decision to deny the motion was based on the law.  Moreover, the overwhelming evidence supports the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt what the State successfully proved:  Below’s actions were a substantial factor in causing Madison’s death.

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP798-CR State v. Below

Dist. II, Washington County, Gonring, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys: For Plaintiff: Daniel J. O’Brien, Madison; For Defendant: Joseph L. Sommers, Oregon

Full Text