I'm looking for a court's ruling on a particular case. Check out my details. Can you help?

Question

So basically, Steph (random name) was at Molly's (random name) party. Molly was 21 and used her house for the party but didn't supply any of the alcohol - someone else bought it. Steph, a minor (Molly thought Steph was 21), was at the party and got really drunk and high. Later, Steph went to a restaurant with some other friends, was there for an hour or so, then wondered off. She later died of exposure to the extreme cold. Now Molly is on trial for homicide. Remember, Molly thought that everyone at her party was 21+ and, when Steph died, she wasn't on or leaving Molly's property. Can anyone give me a court's ruling on similar case where the jury found the defendant, is this case Molly, not guilty? Cite your source please.

Answer 1

That would be nice but there are 50 states with 50 different sets of homicide statutes. I assume your facts are true.

Applying the common law, if someone places someone in harm's way, they are responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of their own actions. This is called "Neligent Homicide" or "Manslaughter" in some jurisdictions.

However, Steph's going out to a restaurant later on with some friends, and then wandering off and dying of exposure constitutes a purely unforseeable consequence of the party. That is leaving, going with other people to a public accomodation, and then wandering off and dying of exposure.

Simply put Molly would never have known that Steph would go out with friends to a restaurant and then disappear from there. Once she left Molly's house, she was on her own.

The fact that someone gave Steph alcohol or drugs does not mean Molly did. Nor does it mean that Steph was drunk or high until later on, at least enough to have her faculties impaired when she left the party and went to the restaurant.

Moreover, at the time she left, Steph was in the company and care of friends, so their negligence in failing to keep an eye on her, if they knew she was drunk or high or both, could have constituted a "Supervening Cause" and they would have been the last people in whose custody Steph was in, such that they were likely negligent, if at all, and caused her death.

In short, if the friends who were at the restaurant are not charged, then how can Molly be charged? After all, the friends took her to a restaurant, and they were in the best position to know if she was drunk, high or both and stop her from wandering off, or at least look for her when she was gone too long.

Sounds like "Supervening Cause" is your defense.

Answer 2

Looking up a particular case is something you'd pay a lawyer for, not expect to get for free on Yahoo! Answers.

I will tell you that the general category of case you're looking for is social invitee or dram shop cases in the negligent homicide context.

Answer 3

This is why lawyers ask for huge retainers when you sign them up to defend a case like this.
It takes a lot of time, an access to a law library which costs thousands of dollars to but and keep current. Essentially you are paying them for their time.

For a start, what state did this occur in??