Bailey v. Commonwealth case brief

 

• Bailey v Commonwealth- V is a nearly blind guy who really likes Gen. Patton and ∆ called Patton and V gay. Then ∆ then tells V that he should go outside w/ his gun then ∆ calls the police and tells them that a blind guy is out waiving his gun. Cops go by and they don’t see anything. ∆ repeats this and cops go back this time V is on the porch w/ his gun and shoots at the cops who then shoot back killing him. He says “I didn’t know you was the police.”
  • Should ∆ be guilty of the homicide since he wasn’t there and he didn’t participate in the final act?
    • There was no certainty… ∆ was the “hoss that caused the loss”
  • People tend to focus on the ∆ in these cases, how close he was to the death. The focus should not be on the ∆ but on the V.
    • As long as ∆ is the “but for” cause and there is no reason to believe that the V consented the ∆ is clearly liable. (∆ can even be far away)
    • In case at hand V did not have any desire to die.