Case Brief
Case Name: Commonwealth v. Cheeks
Citation: 423 Pa. 67, 223 A.2d 291 (1966)
Vote: The Majority in Favor
Author (Opinion of the Court): Justice Eagen
Concurrences: None
Dissent: Justice Cohen
Facts: On October 11, 1963, Joe Henry Howell was stabbed and robbed by four young males on a public street in Philadelphia. He was admitted to the hospital at 2:10 a.m. following the incident. The medical team decided that, in order, to identify the extent of the damage to his abdominal area, they would need to operate.
To prevent post-operative complications, tubes were inserted into the patient. Upon waking up from surgery, Mr. Howell became uncooperative, by trying to pull out the tube, due to his mental state.
On October 15th, his abdomen became distended due to the surgery. A second tube was inserted to help resolve the abdominal complication with the intent …show more content…
First, he mentions that in the courts ruling in Commonwealth v. Root, they held that “the tort liability concept of proximate cause has no proper place in prosecutions for criminal homicide and more direct causal connection is required for conviction.” Second, he suggests that, in this ruling, the Court relied on the tort liability concept of proximate cause. Therefore, the Court went against their ruling in Commonwealth v. Root.
Comments: It is my opinion that the Court’s ruling that Cheek’s is guilty, of causing a chain reaction of events that lead to Joe Howell’s death, is accurate. The cases listed in the notes section of the opinion demonstrate that prior court decisions, that lead to events very similar in this case, found the initial action of the defendant caused a chain reaction of events that inevitably lead to a victim’s death. In this case, had Cheeks not stabbed Joe Howell, to begin with, surgery would not have been necessary and the results of the surgery, that lead to Howell’s death, would never have
Case Name: Commonwealth v. Cheeks
Citation: 423 Pa. 67, 223 A.2d 291 (1966)
Vote: The Majority in Favor
Author (Opinion of the Court): Justice Eagen
Concurrences: None
Dissent: Justice Cohen
Facts: On October 11, 1963, Joe Henry Howell was stabbed and robbed by four young males on a public street in Philadelphia. He was admitted to the hospital at 2:10 a.m. following the incident. The medical team decided that, in order, to identify the extent of the damage to his abdominal area, they would need to operate.
To prevent post-operative complications, tubes were inserted into the patient. Upon waking up from surgery, Mr. Howell became uncooperative, by trying to pull out the tube, due to his mental state.
On October 15th, his abdomen became distended due to the surgery. A second tube was inserted to help resolve the abdominal complication with the intent …show more content…
First, he mentions that in the courts ruling in Commonwealth v. Root, they held that “the tort liability concept of proximate cause has no proper place in prosecutions for criminal homicide and more direct causal connection is required for conviction.” Second, he suggests that, in this ruling, the Court relied on the tort liability concept of proximate cause. Therefore, the Court went against their ruling in Commonwealth v. Root.
Comments: It is my opinion that the Court’s ruling that Cheek’s is guilty, of causing a chain reaction of events that lead to Joe Howell’s death, is accurate. The cases listed in the notes section of the opinion demonstrate that prior court decisions, that lead to events very similar in this case, found the initial action of the defendant caused a chain reaction of events that inevitably lead to a victim’s death. In this case, had Cheeks not stabbed Joe Howell, to begin with, surgery would not have been necessary and the results of the surgery, that lead to Howell’s death, would never have