Causation and Concurrence
Causation and Concurrence
But-for causation, concurrent causes, required culpability, timing, and result attribution.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: Texas statutory anchors with United States and Model Penal Code doctrine explained comparatively; as of 2026-08-28; criminal statutes, defenses, charging, burdens, and precedent vary; synthetic facts are classroom inputs; not legal advice. Render structure, refuse unsupported guilt or defense conclusions, cite, abstain, and hand off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 5 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with criminal-law doctrine
Result crimes require the governing causal connection and the required culpability. The pinned Texas causation provision uses a but-for formulation operating alone or concurrently, subject to its stated concurrent-cause limitation, and addresses certain differences between the result intended or risked and the result that occurred. Factual cause does not by itself resolve every offense-specific attribution question. Concurrence asks whether the required culpable mental state accompanies the legally relevant conduct, circumstance, or result rather than arising only before or after it.
Texas causation
The pinned causation provision states but-for causation and the concurrent-cause limitation, then addresses differences between intended and actual results. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 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. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 6.04; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_6/section_6_04/tex_pe_6_04_b2ccd23f292a/tex_penal_code_sec_6_04_causation_conduct_and_results_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Culpability definitions
The pinned culpability provision supplies the mental-state definitions used in the concurrence trace. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. (b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. (d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 6.03; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_6/section_6_03/tex_pe_6_03_c285c041cea9/tex_penal_code_sec_6_03_definitions_of_culpable_mental_state_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin the synthetic facts
A synthetic alarm disablement, later storm, and noon loss are logged with timestamps, system records, expert alternatives, and disputed sufficiency evidence.
Work the element application
The trace applies the pinned but-for and concurrent-cause language to both causal candidates without inventing expert conclusions. It then identifies the offense's result element and governing culpability, tests their timing, and preserves disputes about intervening causes and result variance.
Read the populated offense record
The causal record contains conduct events, result event, timestamps, counterfactual propositions, concurrent causes, sufficiency evidence, intervening events, required culpability, concurrence interval, contrary proof, and unresolved legal attribution. The record contains 13 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Pinned sources: Verbatim snapshot authority. Tex. Penal Code § 6.04: Texas causation. Tex. Penal Code § 6.03: Culpability definitions. Synthetic facts: Classroom facts only. Conduct A: Person disables a warehouse temperature alarm in the morning. Conduct B: Independent storm causes a later power interruption. Result: Stored material is damaged at noon; expert evidence disputes whether either condition alone was sufficient. Element trace: Questions, evidence pointers, and bounded comparisons. Actual cause: Would the result have occurred but for the conduct, operating alone or concurrently as the pinned provision states. Concurrent cause: Was the other cause clearly sufficient and the actor's conduct clearly insufficient. Legal attribution: Apply offense-specific result, intervening-cause, scope, and culpability doctrine. Concurrence: Required culpability must accompany the legally relevant conduct, circumstance, or result at the required time.
Narrow summary
Prove factual causation under the governing text, then separately address concurrent causes, legal attribution, required culpability, and concurrence.