People v. Flenon Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendant shot victim, who later died from serum hepatitis contracted via blood transfusion during treatment. Court affirmed murder conviction, finding hepatitis not a superseding intervening cause breaking criminal causation.
Legal Significance: Establishes that for criminal homicide, a more direct causal connection than tort proximate cause is required. Medical complications, even if resulting from ordinary negligence, are foreseeable and do not break causation unless medical treatment is grossly erroneous.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
On March 21, 1970, the defendant, Flenon, shot Carl Johnson in the leg. Johnson was hospitalized, and his right leg was amputated due to the severity of the wound. During this medical treatment, he received 11 pints of blood via transfusion. Five weeks later, Johnson was released but was soon readmitted to the hospital, where he died. The autopsy determined the cause of death to be serum hepatitis and pneumonia. Expert testimony indicated Johnson contracted serum hepatitis from the blood transfusion. The expert stated there was a 100% possibility of exposure to serum hepatitis after receiving six pints of blood, though the incidence of death after such exposure is low (.01% to 3%). Defendant argued an insufficient causal connection between the gunshot wound and death by serum hepatitis, claiming the hepatitis was an independent intervening cause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the victim’s death from serum hepatitis, contracted from a blood transfusion necessitated by the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, constitute a superseding intervening cause sufficient to break the chain of criminal causation for murder?
No, the victim’s death from serum hepatitis did not constitute a superseding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the victim’s death from serum hepatitis, contracted from a blood transfusion necessitated by the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, constitute a superseding intervening cause sufficient to break the chain of criminal causation for murder?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that in criminal law, an initial wrongdoer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Rule
For criminal homicide, a 'reasonable and direct causal connection between the injury Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished criminal causation from tort proximate cause, adopting the standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant is criminally liable for a death resulting from foreseeable