Officer Williamson stopped D for a traffic offense. A computer check showed that D did not have a valid driver's license. Officer Williamson asked D to get out of his car; D refused. When Williamson started to open the door of D's car, D put the car in gear and drove away. Williamson jumped into his patrol vehicle and gave chase. During the high-speed chase tWilliamson's patrol vehicle collided with a third car driven by Michael Hildebrandt. Williamson's left leg was broken above the ankle. Hildebrandt suffered more serious injuries: his left thigh, right wrist, and nose were broken, and his spleen was so severely damaged that it had to be surgically removed. D was indicted for first-degree assault on Hildebrandt (reckless infliction of serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument, AS 11-.41.200(a)(1)), and for third-degree assault on Williamson (reckless infliction of physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument, AS 11.41.220(a)(2)). The prosecuting attorney's instruction to the grand jury was that D should be held responsible for the injuries if his conduct was a substantial contributing factor in causing those injuries, regardless of anyone else's negligence. D moved the superior court to dismiss the two assault charges, arguing that the grand jury had been misinstructed on the law of proximate cause. D argued that the collision could have been due to either Williamson's or Hildebrandt's negligent conduct, and that their negligence could have constituted a 'superseding' or 'intervening' cause of the collision. If the grand jury had found that Williamson's or Hildebrandt's conduct had been a superseding cause, D bore no criminal responsibility for the injuries suffered by either party. D relied upon violation of statute 13 AAC 02.517(f), a regulation that requires a police officer in pursuit of a suspected lawbreaker to stop his patrol vehicle at each stop sign and red light. The judge granted D's motion to dismiss the two charges, holding that the grand jury should have been informed of the doctrine of intervening causes. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.