MPC § 2.03: Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Result
What does Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Result (Model Penal Code) provide?
Section 2.03 addresses causation — the requirement that a defendant's conduct be the cause of a prohibited result. The MPC takes a significantly different approach from common law causation by tying the causation analysis directly to the culpability framework of Section 2.02, rather than relying on the common law's proximate cause doctrine with its foreseeability and intervening cause analysis.
Source: Model Penal Code § 2.03
3-day free trial, then $9.99/month. Cancel anytime.
Summary
Section 2.03 addresses causation — the requirement that a defendant's conduct be the cause of a prohibited result. The MPC takes a significantly different approach from common law causation by tying the causation analysis directly to the culpability framework of Section 2.02, rather than relying on the common law's proximate cause doctrine with its foreseeability and intervening cause analysis.
For purposely and knowingly causing a result, conduct is the cause if it is an antecedent but for which the result would not have occurred, and the actual result differs from the designed or contemplated result only in that a different person or different property is injured, or the contemplated injury or harm is less serious or extensive than the actual result. For reckless or negligent causation, conduct is the cause if it is a but-for cause and the actual result differs from the probable result only in that a different person or property is injured or the probable injury is less serious or extensive.
Critically, when the actual result is not within the purpose, contemplation, or risk (depending on culpability level), the element is not established unless the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as designed, contemplated, or risked, and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of the offense.
Key Provisions
4 essential provisions of § 2.03
But-for causation is required: conduct must be an antecedent but for which the result would not have occurred
For purpose/knowledge: actual result need only differ in that a different person or property is affected, or the harm is less serious than designed
For recklessness/negligence: actual result need only differ in that a different person or property is affected, or the harm is less serious than the probable result
When result is outside design or risk, element is not established unless result involves the same kind of harm and is not too remote or accidental to bear on liability
MPC vs. Common Law
How the MPC approach to causal relationship between conduct and result differs from common law
Common law causation employs a two-step test: actual (but-for) cause and proximate (legal) cause. Proximate cause involves foreseeability analysis and considers whether intervening causes (dependent or independent, foreseeable or unforeseeable) break the causal chain. The MPC deliberately abandons this framework. Instead of asking whether a result was "foreseeable" or whether an intervening cause was "superseding," the MPC asks whether the actual result was "too remote or accidental" to have a just bearing on liability. This is a softer, more flexible standard than the common law's proximate cause rules, and it integrates the causation inquiry with the culpability analysis. The MPC also handles transferred intent differently — where common law uses a distinct doctrine of transferred intent, the MPC simply treats harm to a different victim as a variant of the designed result under Section 2.03(2)(a).
Exam Relevance
How § 2.03 appears on criminal law exams
Causation questions under the MPC typically involve unexpected victims, unexpected manner of harm, or intervening causes. A common exam pattern: D shoots at V1 but hits V2 — under the MPC, this is simply a case where the actual result differs from the designed result in that a different person is injured, and liability is established. Another pattern involves an intended result occurring through an unexpected chain of events (e.g., D poisons V's drink, but V dies in a car accident while rushing to the hospital after feeling ill). Students must analyze whether the actual result is "too remote or accidental" to bear on liability. The key insight for exams is that the MPC replaces proximate cause analysis with a culpability-integrated approach — always tie your causation analysis back to the defendant's mental state.
Related Sections
Sections frequently studied alongside § 2.03
More from Article 2 — General Principles of Liability
Other sections in Article 2