Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-2-5 (2026)
Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Results; Relationship to Mental Culpability.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(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.
(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:
(1) A different person or property was injured, harmed or affected; or
(2) A less serious or less extensive injury or harm occurred.
(c) When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §320.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “" Ala.Code 1975 § 13A-2-5(a). "Where, as here, the wound inflicted by defendant upon the victim is dangerous to life, the fact that there are other contributing causes of death does not prevent such a wound from being the legal cause of death.”
Jimmy Dill v. Richard F. Allen, 488 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). “”); see Ala.Code § 13A-2-5(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…”
Pearson v. State, 601 So. 2d 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “" Commentary to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-2-5, at 30 (emphasis added).”
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). “Congress could have written § 841(b)(1)(C) to impose a mandatory minimum when the underlying crime "contributes to" death or serious bodily injury, or adopted a modified causation test tailored to cases involving concurrent causes, as five States have done, see Ala.”
Ex Parte Lucas, 792 So. 2d 1169 (Ala. 2000). “Lucas contends that the evidence does not establish, as required by § 13A-2-5(a), Ala.Code 1975, that, but for Lucas's failure to seek medical treatment for her son, he would have survived.”
Key v. State, 890 So. 2d 1043 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “) The Commentary to § 13A-2-5 notes: "Rules governing causation were not covered by Alabama statutes and only sporadically in the cases.”
Franklin v. State, 23 So. 3d 694 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “*706 "Section 13A-2-5(a), Ala.Code 1975, the statute governing causation in criminal cases, provides: "`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…”
Best v. State, 895 So. 2d 1050 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “"The burning of the victim's house was not an indirect result of the theft or burglary under § 13A-2-5, Code of Alabama (1975).... "..”
Mathis v. State, 497 So. 2d 231 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “" Moreover, § 13A-2-5(b)(1), Code of Alabama 1975 provides that, "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: A different person or property was…”
Witherspoon v. State, 33 So. 3d 625 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “” § 13A-2-5, Ala.Code 1975. In Pearson v. State, 601 So.”
Richardson v. State, 603 So. 2d 1132 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “However, in this case, it would be reasonable to foresee that the theft of the tools from the van that the appellant stole and then abandoned could be the indirect result of the appellant's unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.”
Bros. v. State, 531 So. 2d 317 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “The burning of the victim's house was not an indirect result of the theft or burglary under § 13A-2-5, Code of Alabama (1975). This statute addresses the causal relationship between conduct and results, and states: "(a) A person is criminally liable if the result would not have…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-2-5(a) — 14 cases
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “" Ala.Code 1975 § 13A-2-5(a). "Where, as here, the wound inflicted by defendant upon the victim is dangerous to life, the fact that there are other contributing causes of death does not prevent such a wound from being the legal cause of death.”
Jimmy Dill v. Richard F. Allen, 488 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). “”); see Ala.Code § 13A-2-5(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…”
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). “Congress could have written § 841(b)(1)(C) to impose a mandatory minimum when the underlying crime "contributes to" death or serious bodily injury, or adopted a modified causation test tailored to cases involving concurrent causes, as five States have done, see Ala.”
Ex Parte Lucas, 792 So. 2d 1169 (Ala. 2000). “Lucas contends that the evidence does not establish, as required by § 13A-2-5(a), Ala.Code 1975, that, but for Lucas's failure to seek medical treatment for her son, he would have survived.”
Pearson v. State, 601 So. 2d 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “" Commentary to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-2-5, at 30 (emphasis added).”
— Ala. Code § 13A-2-5(b)(1) — 1 case
Mathis v. State, 497 So. 2d 231 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “" Moreover, § 13A-2-5(b)(1), Code of Alabama 1975 provides that, "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: A different person or property was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.