Connection lost
Server error
State v. Govan Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man shot his girlfriend, paralyzing her. She died from pneumonia nearly five years later. The court affirmed his manslaughter conviction, holding that her subsequent illness and alleged “loss of will to live” were foreseeable consequences of his act and not superseding causes breaking legal causation.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a victim’s subsequent illness or “loss of will to live” resulting from a catastrophic injury is a foreseeable “response” to the defendant’s act, not an abnormal event that breaks the chain of proximate causation for homicide.
State v. Govan Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1980, the appellant, Govan, shot his girlfriend, Sharon Keeble, in the neck during an argument. The gunshot wound rendered Keeble a quadriplegic. Govan was initially charged with aggravated assault, but the charge was dismissed. Govan and Keeble later married. For nearly five years, Keeble lived with quadriplegia and required constant care. In 1985, she contracted pneumonia and died. Medical testimony at trial established that the cause of death was pneumonia stemming from the quadriplegia, which was a direct result of the gunshot wound. The state then charged Govan with second-degree murder. At trial, Govan argued that he could not be held liable for the death because the nearly five-year gap and the victim’s alleged “loss of will to live”—evidenced by her delay in seeking treatment for the pneumonia—constituted a superseding cause that broke the chain of legal causation. The jury convicted Govan of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a victim’s death from pneumonia nearly five years after being rendered a quadriplegic by the defendant’s act constitute a natural and foreseeable result of that act, or does the passage of time and the victim’s alleged “loss of will to live” act as a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation for homicide?
Yes, the victim’s death was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s act, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a victim’s death from pneumonia nearly five years after being rendered a quadriplegic by the defendant’s act constitute a natural and foreseeable result of that act, or does the passage of time and the victim’s alleged “loss of will to live” act as a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation for homicide?
Conclusion
This case reinforces a broad interpretation of proximate cause in homicide, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Legal Rule
A defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of a victim's death if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute iru
Legal Analysis
The court applied the proximate cause framework from *State v. Hall*, which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecte
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A trial court can correct an erroneous jury instruction by recalling