California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Catlin, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 Cal.4th 81, 26 P.3d 357 (Cal. 2001):
[26 Cal.4th 90]
Roberts also recognized that the instruction on proximate cause might be confusing simply because of its poor grammar and the uncertainty of the meaning of the term "proximate cause." (People v. Roberts, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 313, 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274.) We do not believe, however, that these ambiguities in the instruction could have caused a juror to conclude that defendant's act might be a proximate cause of either victim's death simply because it occurred near the time of the death or illness of the victim, even though that juror did not believe that defendant's act caused the death.[26 Cal.4th 90]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.