Under KRS 501.060, conduct is the cause of a result when it is which of the following?

Under KRS 501.060, conduct is the cause of a result when it is which of the following?

• A. Conduct is the cause of a result only if it directly produces the result.
• B. Conduct is the cause if it is the sole factor in producing the result.
• C. Conduct is the cause when it is an antecedent without which the result would not have occurred.
• D. Conduct is never the cause in any circumstance.

Answer: (C)

Causation in Kentucky criminal liability is about causation in fact: the defendant’s conduct must be a condition without which the result would not have occurred. This is the but-for standard. The statement that conduct is the cause when it is an antecedent without which the result would not have occurred captures that idea precisely—if you could remove the conduct and the result would not happen, it was the cause. This explains why the other ideas aren’t the right fit. If a result happens only because of the combination of factors, or if it would occur anyway because of other causes, then the conduct isn’t the but-for cause. The requirement isn’t that the conduct directly produce the result in a single step; it’s that absent the conduct, the result would not have occurred. Saying the conduct is the sole factor is too restrictive—sometimes multiple factors contribute, yet the conduct can still be a necessary antecedent. And of course, saying it’s never the cause contradicts the very idea of causation-in-fact used in these statutes.

Causation in Kentucky criminal liability is about causation in fact: the defendant’s conduct must be a condition without which the result would not have occurred. This is the but-for standard. The statement that conduct is the cause when it is an antecedent without which the result would not have occurred captures that idea precisely—if you could remove the conduct and the result would not happen, it was the cause.

This explains why the other ideas aren’t the right fit. If a result happens only because of the combination of factors, or if it would occur anyway because of other causes, then the conduct isn’t the but-for cause. The requirement isn’t that the conduct directly produce the result in a single step; it’s that absent the conduct, the result would not have occurred. Saying the conduct is the sole factor is too restrictive—sometimes multiple factors contribute, yet the conduct can still be a necessary antecedent. And of course, saying it’s never the cause contradicts the very idea of causation-in-fact used in these statutes.