Intervening criminal acts are usually not foreseeable unless which conditions?

• A. The defendant should have anticipated the criminal act or the defendant's conduct makes the criminal act more likely to occur.
• B. The victim invited the crime.
• C. The defendant had no knowledge of crime.
• D. The crime occurs irrespective of defendant's actions.

Answer: (A)

Intervening acts are treated as breaking the chain of causation only when they are not reasonably foreseeable. The liability of the defendant remains intact if the crime that occurs was something the defendant should have anticipated, or if the defendant’s own conduct made the criminal act more likely to occur. In other words, foreseeability keeps the causal link alive.

So, the best answer captures the idea that intervening criminal acts are usually not foreseeable unless the defendant should have anticipated them or their own conduct makes the act more likely. The other options miss this foreseeability requirement or describe situations not tied to the defendant’s causal contribution.