Defendant: Acosta; acosta was disco

Defendant: Acosta; acosta was discovered in a stolen car and he gave the police a 48 mile chase during which he was involved in highly reckless driving. Unfortunately, two of the police helicopters which were chasing Acosta crashed in the air and three police officers were killed as a result of the crash. During the trial, an expert testified that the crash was a result of pilot’s negligence. But still the defendant was convicted for second degree murder. Now the defendant appeals.

Issue: 1. Was the crash a result of defendant’s acts? 2. Was the crash foreseeable to a reasonable person? 3. Is there sufficient evidence of malice on the part of the defendant?

Holding: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No

Key Facts: In order to have causation, the prosecutor has to prove that the defendant’s act was the “actual cause” of the victim’s injury. Also, in this case, the court used the objective and not the subjective standard to determine foreseeability of the event.

Legal Reasoning: The court determined that had the defendant never drove away from the police, the helicopters were not going to be involved in the crash. The court further determined that the fact that two police helicopters had never crashed in a chase before does not take away the forseeability of such event occurring in the mind of a reasonable person. But the court held that a jury will never find sufficient evidence of malice on the part of the defendant, so conviction was reversed.

Kết quả (Trung) 2:

被告：阿科斯塔; 阿科斯塔被发现偷来的车，他给了警方在此期间，他参与了非常鲁莽驾驶一48英里追逐。不幸的是，两人的警用直升机而追逐阿科斯塔坠毁在空气中，三名警察被打死的崩溃的结果。在庭审中，专家作证说，飞机坠毁是飞行员的疏忽造成的。但还是被告被判二级谋杀。现在被告提出上诉。问题：1，当时 ​​坠机被告的行为的结果呢？2.当时崩溃预见到一个合理的人吗？3.是否有恶意，对被告人的部分充分证据？控股：1.是2.是3.没有关键事实：为了有因果关系，检察官必须证明被告的行为是“真正原因”受害人的伤害。此外，在这种情况下，法院使用的目的，而不是主观的标准，以确定事件的可预见性。法律推理：法院认定了被告人从未从警方驱车离开，直升机是不会被卷入崩溃。法院还认定的事实，两地警方的直升机从来没有坠毁在追逐前，并没有带走一个合理的人的心灵发生这种事件的可预见性。但法院认为，陪审团将永远找不到恶意被告人的部分证据充分，所以信念发生了逆转。

Kết quả (Trung) 3:

被告：阿科斯塔；Acosta是一辆偷来的车发现他给警察一个48英里的追逐中，他参与了非常鲁莽驾驶。不幸的是，两个警察的直升机追逐阿科斯塔坠毁在空气和三名警察因坠机身亡。在审讯过程中，一位专家作证说，坠机事故是由于飞行员的疏忽造成的。但被告被判二级谋杀罪。现在被告的上诉。是被告的行为导致的结果吗？2。是一个合理的人可以预见的崩溃吗？3。被告有没有充分的证据？持有：1。是的，是的。是的，是的。不重要事实：为了有因果关系，检察官必须证明被告的行为是受害人受伤的“实际原因”。同时，在这种情况下，法院以客观而不是主观的标准来确定事件的可预见性。

法律推理：法院判定，被告从未驶出了警察的直升机，不去参与碰撞。法院进一步确定，事实上，两架警用直升机没有坠毁在一个大通之前不把这样的事件发生在心灵的一个合理的人的预见性。但法院认为，陪审员将永远不会找到足够的证据，对被告的一部分，这样的信念被逆转。