In addition to the felony-murder statute itself, the justification rests on principles of causation and foreseeability. As Alabama courts have explained:
Section 13A-2-5, Ala. Code 1975, addresses causation, in
pertinent part, as follows:
"(a) A person is criminally liable if the result would not have
occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently
with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was sufficient
to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly
insufficient.
<p>"(b) A person is nevertheless criminally liable for causing a result
if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he
intended, contemplated or risked is that:</p>
<p>"(1) A different person or property was injured, harmed or affected;</p>
<p>". . . ."</p>
This Court addressed causation in the context of felony murder in
Witherspoon v. State, 33 So. 3d 625 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). In
Witherspoon, two masked men, Witherspoon and Baggett, entered a
convenience store; Baggett was holding a gun. The store clerk grabbed
his own gun and shot Baggett. In upholding Witherspoon's conviction
for felony murder, this Court stated:
"'[F]oreseeability is the key issue in a causation inquiry. The
"controlling question[]" is "whether the ultimate result was
foreseeable to the original actor." Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145,
151 n.9, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1735 n.9, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977). If the
accused "should have perceived" that his own conduct would concur with
another cause to bring about the injury to the victim, then the other
cause is concurrent, not supervening. See Shirah v. State, 555 So. 2d
807, 812-13 (Ala. Cr. App. 1989) (conduct of accused, who
supplied morphine to victim, was the cause-in-fact of victim's death
from overdose of Secobarbital and morphine combined). On the other
hand, a supervening cause "breaks the chain of causation" precisely
because it is not a reasonably foreseeable result of the accused's
conduct. Lewis [v. State], 474 So. 2d [766, 771 (Ala. Crim. App.
1985)].'"
Witherspoon, 33 So. 3d at 628-29 (quoting Pearson v. State,
601 So. 2d 1119, 1127 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)).
Resolving the issue of causation, this Court held that, but for the
acts of Witherspoon and Baggett entering the store wearing masks,
demanding money, and carrying a gun, the store clerk would not have
used his own gun to shoot and kill Baggett. Witherspoon, 33 So. 3d at
631. Furthermore, the store clerk's reactions to Witherspoon and Baggett's conduct were not abnormal or unforeseeable, given the
actions of the participants in the robbery. Witherspoon, 33 So. 3d at
631.
Mills v. State, 144 So. 3d 499, 505 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (alteration in original).
