## Facts

- Charles Rementer argued with his girlfriend, Mary Berry, in a Philadelphia bar; Berry left upset and entered her taxi cab.
- Rementer followed Berry, forced his way into the driver’s side, shoved her into the passenger seat, and drove off.
- A truck driver witnessed Berry hanging out of the passenger window yelling for help while Rementer beat her, pulled her hair, and tried to drag her back into the cab.
- Berry fell from the cab; Rementer exited and continued beating her while she was on the ground.
- After a witness left to summon police and returned, Rementer was still striking Berry, then forced her back into the cab, restrained her, shut the door, and drove away.
- Berry escaped again and ran to a passing station wagon seeking help; the driver pushed her away and accelerated, accidentally running over her and killing her.
- Medical evidence showed Berry died from injuries consistent with being run over by a vehicle.
- After a non-jury trial, Rementer was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 4–12 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove criminal causation for homicide, including whether Rementer’s conduct was a direct and substantial factor in Berry’s death and whether intervening acts (Berry’s flight or the station wagon driver’s conduct) were superseding causes.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove malice required for third-degree murder under Pennsylvania law.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held the evidence supported causation because Rementer’s assaultive conduct and confinement were a direct and substantial factor leading to Berry’s death.
- The court held Berry’s escape attempts were foreseeable reactions to the danger Rementer created and did not break the causal chain.
- The court held the station wagon driver’s panicked response was not so extraordinary as to constitute a superseding cause.
- The court held the evidence supported malice because Rementer engaged in sustained, violent conduct demonstrating reckless disregard for the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania homicide cases, causation is satisfied when the defendant’s conduct is a direct and substantial factor in producing the death.
- An intervening act relieves a defendant of liability only if it is so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it constitutes a superseding cause.
- A victim’s flight or efforts to secure safety, even if they contribute to the fatal mechanism, ordinarily remain within the causal chain when they are foreseeable responses to the defendant’s wrongdoing.
- For third-degree murder, malice may be inferred from conduct showing wickedness, cruelty, or reckless disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk to human life, even without a specific intent to kill.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Rementer’s third-degree murder conviction because his ongoing violent assault foreseeably drove Berry into desperate attempts to escape, culminating in her death, and the victim’s and third party’s reactions did not sever causation; the sustained brutality supported an inference of malice.


Commonwealth v. Rementer, 598 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)