When a different result still counts as reckless or negligent

In the following instances, recklessly or negligently causing a particular result shall be deemed to be established even though the actual result caused by the defendant may not have been within the risk of which the defendant was or, in the case of negligence, should have been aware: (1) The actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or (2) The actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence or too dependent on another's volitional conduct to have a bearing on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of the defendant's offense. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §3(a); am L 1975, c 163, §2; gen ch 1993] COMMENTARY ON §702-216 Much of what has been said in the commentary on §§702-214 and 215 applies with equal force to this section. The only difference is that this section deals with reckless and negligent causation. Here the Code is concerned with results which differ from those within the risk of which the defendant was aware or of which the defendant should have been aware. However, the factors which are to be considered are the same: whether the actual harm is more extensive or serious than the probable result and whether the actual result is too remote or accidental in its occurrence or too dependent on another's volitional conduct. For a fuller discussion, the reader is referred to the commentary on §§702-214 and 215. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §702-216 Act 136, Session Laws 1973, amended paragraph (1) by deleting the words "intended or contemplated" which followed the word "harm" and amended paragraph (2) by substituting the phrase "probable result" for the phrase "intended or contemplated result." References to the words "intended or contemplated" were eliminated since they "connote an intentional act on the part of the accused which is inconsistent with 'reckless' or 'negligent' as defined in §702-206." Senate Standing Committee Report No. 858, House Standing Committee Report No. 726. Act 163, Session Laws 1975, amended this section in order to phrase the propositions in positive rather than negative language. It was felt that this change would make these propositions clearer when included in jury instructions. This amendment was not intended to change the section in substance but only in form. Conference Committee Report No. 19.