My concern is the "did by reason of such intoxication cause the death of another" language. Here are my facts: Driver A is intoxicated and driving on the wrong side of the road. Driver A causes an 18 wheeler to jack-knife and go into the median. The driver of the 18 wheeler gets out of his vehicle alive and well. Driver A has driven on down the road. The driver of the 18 wheeler for some reason unknown walks into traffic and is hit by driver B. Police find driver A and want to charge intoxication manslaughter. I do not see it. Does anyone see this as intoxication manslaughter on driver A?

I think it's too attenuated to say that caused V's death by his intoxication; however, you can probably get away with a charge on leaving a scene of an accident in which it was anticipated that death serious bodily injury could have occurred because who knows what can happen when a semi loses control like that.

The concept is very broad, but maybe not that broad. The provision you quoted is complimented by this one.

� 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is
criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but
for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with
another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient
to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly
insufficient.


"Clearly insufficient" gives prosecutors more room than our civil brethren, but I would also suggest bad facts make bad law and urge caution.

Thank you.