HUBBART, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant Isaac Alejandro Velazquez from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for vehicular homicide which was entered below upon a nolo contendere plea. The defendant, upon entry of such plea, specifically reserved for appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the information herein under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The sole issue presented for review is whether a defendant driver of a motor vehicle who participates in a reckless and illegal “drag race” on a public road may be properly convicted of vehicular homicide [§ 782.071, Fla.Stat. (1987)] for the death of one of the co-participant drivers suffered in the course of the “drag race” — when the sole basis for imposing liability is the defendant’s participation in said race. We hold that the defendant may not be held criminally liable under the above statute in such case because the co-participant driver, in effect, killed himself by his voluntary and reckless driving in the subject “drag race” and thus the defendant’s actions in engaging in the said race was not a proximate cause of the co-participant’s death.

I

The defendant Velazquez was charged by information with the crime of vehicular homicide. Specifically, the information alleged that on April 23, 1988, the defendant

“did unlawfully and feloniously operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, to wit: Participated in a DRAG RACE, RAN A STOP SIGN and EXCEEDED the SPEED LIMIT with his VEHICLE, and thereby cause the death of ADAL-BERTO ALVAREZ, in violation of 782.-071 Florida Statutes.”

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss this information under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) on the ground that the undisputed material facts in the case demonstrated that the state did not, as a matter of law, have a prima facie case of vehicular homicide against the defendant. The defendant set forth in the motion to dismiss certain facts which he swore to be true in open court at the hearing on the subject motion.1 The *349state filed a traverse in which it altered one non-material fact stated in the motion to dismiss and added an additional set of facts based on sworn depositions taken in the case. Accepting the sworn facts stated in the motion to dismiss, as supplemented and altered by the traverse, the material undisputed facts in the case are as follows.

On April 23, 1988, at approximately 2:30 A.M., the defendant Velazquez met the deceased Adalberto Alvarez at a Hardee’s restaurant in Hialeah, Florida. The two had never previously met, but in the course of their conversation agreed to race each other in a “drag race” with their respective automobiles. They, accordingly, left the restaurant and proceeded to set up a quarter-mile “drag race” course on a nearby public road which ran perpendicular to a canal alongside the Palmetto Expressway in Hialeah; a guardrail and a visible stop sign2 stood between the end of this road and the canal. The two men began their “drag race” at the end of this road and proceeded away from the canal in a westerly direction for one-quarter mile. Upon completing the course without incident, the deceased Alvarez suddenly turned his automobile 180 degrees around and proceeded east toward the starting line and the canal; the defendant Velazquez did the same and followed behind Alvarez. Alvarez proceeded in the lead and attained an estimated speed of 123 m.p.h.; he was not wearing a seat belt and subsequent investigation revealed that he had a blood alcohol level between .11 and .12. The defendant Velazquez, who had not been drinking, trailed Alvarez the entire distance back to the starting line and attained an estimated speed of 98 m.p.h. As both drivers approached the end of the road, they applied their brakes, but neither could stop. Alvarez, who was about a car length ahead of the defendant Velazquez, crashed through the guardrail first and was propelled over the entire canal, landing on its far bank; he was thrown from his car upon impact, was pinned under his vehicle when it landed on him, and died instantly from the resulting injuries. The defendant also crashed through the guardrail, but landed in the canal where he was able to escape from his vehicle and swim to safety uninjured.

Based on these facts, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether the defendant’s participation in the “drag race” was a sufficient legal cause of the deceased’s death so as to support a conviction for vehicular homicide. The defendant subsequently entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; the trial court then placed the defendant on four years probation. This appeal follows.

II

The vehicular homicide statute, under which the defendant was charged and convicted, provides as follows:

“ ‘Vehicular homicide’ is the killing of a human being by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vehicular homicide is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.-083, or s. 775.084.”

§ 782.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). There are two statutory elements to vehicular homi-cide: (1) the defendant must operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another, and (2) this reckless operation of a *350motor vehicle must be the proximate cause of the death of a human being. Byrd v. State, 531 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); M.C.J. v. State, 444 So.2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 849 (Fla.1984); J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980); compare Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 72 (1989) (vehicular homicide).

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, we have no trouble in concluding that the first element of this offense is clearly established on this record. Plainly, the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another, in that (a) he participated in a highly dangerous “drag race” with the deceased on a public road in which both lanes were used as a speedway, and (b) he drove his vehicle at the excessive speed of 98 m.p.h. during the “drag race.” Without question, the defendant’s motor vehicle operation endangered the lives of all persons in the vicinity of the “drag race,” namely, people in other motor vehicles and nearby pedestrians. See McCreary v. State, 371 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1979).

The second element of this offense, however, has given us considerable pause, as no doubt it did the trial court, because no endangered third party in the vicinity of the “drag race” was killed in this case; moreover, it is here that the parties to this appeal marshal their primary authorities and argument. It is therefore necessary that we consult the Florida law on this subject, and survey as well the relevant law thereon throughout the country. Nonetheless, we approach this subject with a certain degree of caution, mindful that the problems raised by the element of “proximate cause” in cases of this nature “present enormous difficulty (especially in homicide [cases]) because of the obscurity of that concept,” an obscurity which has resulted in the announcement of “varying and sometimes inconsistent rules in the numerous areas in which the problem has arisen.” Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 comment 1, at 255-56 (1985).

A

At the outset, it seems clear that the proximate cause element of vehicular homicide in Florida embraces, at the very least, a causation-in-fact test; that is, the defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle must be a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being. In this respect, vehicular homicide is no different than any other criminal offense in which the occurrence of a specified result, caused by a defendant’s conduct, is an essential element of the offense — such as murder, [§ 782.04, Fla.Stat. (1989)], manslaughter [§ 782.07, Fla.Stat. (1989)], aggravated battery [§ 784.045, Fla.Stat. (1989) ], and arson [§ 806.01, Fla. Stat. (1989) ]. Clearly there can be no criminal liability for such result-type offenses unless it can be shown that the defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result, whether the result be the death of a human being, personal injury to another, or injury to another’s property. To be sure, this cause-in-fact showing is insufficient in itself to establish the aforesaid “proximate cause” element in a vehicular homicide case, but it is clearly a sine qua non ingredient thereof. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(a),(b), at 390-96 (1986); Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 explanatory note, at 254 (1985).

Courts throughout the country have uniformly followed the traditional “but for” test in determining whether the defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of a prohibited consequence in result-type offenses such as vehicular homicide. Under this test, a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result if the said result would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct; stated differently, the defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a particular result if the result would not have happened in the absence of the defendant’s conduct. Thus, a defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle is a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being under Florida’s vehicular homicide statute [§ 782.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1987)] if the subject death would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s reckless driving or *351would not have happened in the absence of such driving. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(b), at 393-94 (1986); Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 and comment 2, at 257-58 (1985); compare Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 17-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

In relatively rare cases, however, the “but for” test for causation-in-fact fails and has been abandoned in favor of the “substantial factor” test. This anomaly occurs when two defendants, acting independently and not in concert with one another, commit two separate acts, each of which alone is sufficient to bring about the prohibited result — as when two defendants concurrently inflict mortal wounds upon a human being, each of which is sufficient to cause death. In such case, each defendant’s action was not a “but for” cause of death because the deceased would have died even in the absence of each defendant’s conduct — although obviously not in the absence of both defendants’ conduct considered together. In these rare cases, the courts have followed a “substantial factor” test, namely, the defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result if the subject conduct was a “substantial factor” in bringing about the said result. Thus, each defendant’s conduct in independently and concurrently inflicting mortal wounds on a deceased clearly constitutes a “substantial factor” in bringing about the deceased’s death, and, consequently, is a cause-in-fact of the deceased’s death. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(b), at 394-95 (1986); compare Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

B

The “proximate cause” element of vehicular homicide in Florida embraces more, however, than the aforesaid “but for” causation-in-fact test as modified by the “substantial factor” exception. Even where a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result, as where a defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle is a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being, Florida and other courts throughout the country have for good reason declined to impose criminal liability (1) where the prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct, or (b) where it would otherwise be unjust, based on fairness and policy considerations, to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the prohibited result. See 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(c)-(h), at 396-421 (1986), and cases collected; compare M.C.J. v. State, 444 So.2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 849 (Fla.1984); Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

In deaths resulting from illegal “drag racing” on a public road, as here, it has been held in Florida that the driver of one of the racing vehicles was properly convicted of manslaughter when the driver of another vehicle in the race collided head on with a non-participant motor vehicle which was lawfully using the subject highway, killing the driver of same. Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). The court reasoned that the defendant, by participating in the “drag race,” was aiding and abetting each of the other participant drivers in the race in committing reckless driving — so that when one of the participants committed a manslaughter in the course of the race against a third party, the defendant was also guilty of manslaughter. In reaching this result, the court relied on the following rules of law stated by Wharton and Clark & Marshall:

“ ‘ * * * If each of two persons jointly engage in the commission of acts which amount to criminal negligence, and as a result of which a third person is killed, each may be found guilty of manslaughter even though it may be impossible to say whose act actually caused the death.’

‘There may be principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact to involuntary manslaughter. Thus, if two men drive separate vehicles at a furious and dangerous speed along the *352highway, each inciting and abetting the other, and one of them drives over and kills a person, the one thus causing the death is guilty of manslaughter as principal in the first degree, and the other is guilty as principal in the second degree. * * *

Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d at 716 (quoting 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 290 (Anderson 1957) and Clark & Marshall, Crimes, 3d ed. § 164) (emphasis added).

Where, however, a participant passenger in such an illegal “drag race,” accidently grabs the steering wheel of a vehicle involved in the race, instead of the gear shift he was assigned to operate, causing the vehicle to go out of control, crash, and kill the passenger — this court has held that the defendant driver of the subject motor vehicle was improperly convicted of vehicular homicide. J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980). The court reasoned that the passenger’s reckless act of grabbing the steering wheel was an independent intervening act which superseded the respondent’s wrongful conduct in participating in the “drag race.” Id. at 607. Although, obviously, the respondent’s participation in the subject race was a “but for” cause-in-fact of the passenger’s death and such death was plainly within the scope of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct in participating in the race — this court nonetheless implicitly concluded that it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the passenger’s death because the passenger, in effect, killed himself by his own reckless conduct.

The result reached in J.A.C. is in accord with the weight of better-reasoned decisions on this subject throughout the country. These courts have uniformly concluded that a driver-participant in an illegal “drag race” on a public road cannot be held criminally responsible for the death of another driver participant when (a) the deceased, in effect, kills himself by his own reckless driving during the race, and (b) the sole basis for attaching criminal liability for his death is the defendant’s participation in the “drag race.” 3 The policy reasons for reaching this result are best expressed in State v. Petersen, 17 Or.App. 478, 495, 522 P.2d 912, 920 (1974) (Schwab, C.J., dissenting) (dissent adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court in State v. Petersen, 270 Or. 166, 526 P.2d 1008 (1974)):

“[T]he question is whether defendant’s reckless conduct ‘caused’ the death of the victim. The problem here is not ‘causation in fact,’ it is ‘legal causation.’ In unusual cases like this one, whether certain conduct is deemed to be the legal cause of a certain result is ultimately a policy question. The question of legal causation thus blends into the question of whether we are willing to hold a defendant responsible for a prohibited result. Or, stated differently, the issue is not causation, it is responsibility. In my opinion, policy considerations are against imposing responsibility for the death of a participant in a race on the surviving racer when his sole contribution to the death is the participation in the activity mutually agreed upon.

It is not unheard of for people to engage in hazardous vocations and avocations. It could be said, for example, that professional racetrack drivers earn their living by consciously disregarding a substantial risk that death will occur on the racetrack. Yet, it would probably strike most people as strange if the surviving drivers were prosecuted for manslaughter following a fatal racetrack acci-' dent....

My point is that people frequently join together in reckless conduct. As long as all participants do so knowingly and voluntarily, I see no point in holding the survivor(s) guilty of manslaughter if the reckless conduct results in death.... ”

*353522 P.2d at 920-21 (citations and footnote omitted). LaFave and Scott also summarize the legal basis for these decisions:

“It is submitted that the true reason for the holding [in these cases] is the court’s feeling ... that A should not, in all justice, be held for the death of B who was an equally willing and foolhardy participant in the bad conduct which caused his death.”

1 W. LaFave and A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12, at 418 (1986).

Ill

Turning now to the instant case, it is clear that the defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle in participating in the “drag race” with the deceased was, technically speaking, a cause-in-fact of the deceased’s death under the “but for” test. But for the defendant’s participation in the subject race, the deceased would not have recklessly raced his vehicle at all and thus would not have been killed. However, under the authority of J.A.C. and the better reasoned decisions throughout the country, the defendant’s participation in the subject “drag race” was not a proximate cause of the deceased’s death because, simply put, the deceased, in effect, killed himself by his own volitional reckless driving—and, consequently, it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for this death.

The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that the “drag race” was, in effect, over when the defendant and the deceased had completed the agreed-upon one-quarter mile course and had crossed the finish line. Unexpectedly, however, the deceased suddenly whirled his vehicle around and headed back toward the starting line and the canal which ran perpendicular to the road on which he was travelling; although the defendant then followed, it is plain that it was the deceased's sole decision to return to the starting line, as apparently this had not previously been agreed upon. At any rate, the deceased, who had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and was wearing no seat belt, attained an estimated speed of 123 m.p.h. on his return trip; applied the brakes as he approached the end of the road but was unable to stop; crashed through a protective guard rail; and incredibly vaulted the entire canal, landing on the far bank. He was thrown from his vehicle upon impact, was pinned under the vehicle when it landed on him, and died instantly from the resulting injuries. Although the defendant was about one-car length in back of the deceased during the deceased’s fatal return to the starting line, the defendant at no time struck the deceased's vehicle and did not physically propel it in any way across the canal. Clearly, the deceased was on a near-suicide mission when, on his own hook, he returned to the starting line of the race after the race was apparently over, attaining a murderous speed of 123 m.p.h., vaulted a canal, and killed himself. This being so, it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the deceased’s unexpected and near-suicidal conduct.

We agree that if the deceased had collided with an oncoming motorist who happened to be in the vicinity lawfully using the subject road resulting in the said motorist’s death, the defendant would be criminally liable for this death on an aiding- and-abetting theory; clearly, the deceased would be guilty of vehicular homicide in killing the oncoming motorist, and the defendant, in participating in the illegal “drag race,” would be aiding and abetting the deceased in the latter’s reckless driving and ultimate negligent homicide. Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). In such a case, however, the oncoming motorist could in no way be said to be responsible for his own death and, consequently, no policy or fairness reason would exist for finding no proximate cause. Clearly, this cannot be said in the instant case.

The state nonetheless relies on cases from other jurisdictions which have reached a contrary result to the one we reach herein.4 We have reviewed these cases, but are not persuaded by their rea-*354soiling because we think they lead to an unjust result. In our judgment, it is simply unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong to say that the defendant in the instant case is criminally responsible for the death of the deceased when it is undisputed that the deceased, in effect, killed himself. No one forced this young man to participate in the subject “drag race”; no one forced him to whirl around and proceed back toward the canal after the race was apparently over; no one forced him to travel 123 m.p.h., vault a canal, and kill himself upon impact. He did all these things himself, and was, accordingly, the major cause of his own death. We are constrained by law to construe criminal statutes strictly in favor of the accused, § 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1989), and, given this salutary principle of statutory construction, we are unwilling to construe our vehicular homicide statute to impose criminal liability on the defendant under the circumstances of this case.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

HORSEY, Justice:

Defendant, Jeffrey Oxendine, Sr., appeals his conviction in trial by jury in Superior Court of manslaughter (11 Del.C. § 632(1))1 in the beating death of his six-year-old son, Jeffrey Oxendine, Jr. Oxen-*871dine was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.2 On appeal, Oxendine’s principal argument is that the Trial Court committed reversible error by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the issue of causation. Specifically, he argues that the State’s medical testimony, relating to which of the codefendants’ admittedly repeated beatings of the child was the cause of death, was so vague and uncertain as to preclude his conviction of any criminal offense.

We conclude that the evidence upon causation was insufficient to sustain Oxen-dine’s conviction of manslaughter, but that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction of the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree (11 Del.C. § 612(1)).3 Therefore, we affirm the Trial Court’s denial of Oxendine’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, direct that he be convicted of assault in the second degree, and remand for entry of judgment of conviction and resentencing for that offense. * * *

The facts may be summarized as follows: On the morning of January 18, 1984, Leo-tha Tyree, Oxendine’s girlfriend, who lived with him, pushed Jeffrey into the bathtub causing microscopic tears in his intestines which led to peritonitis. During a break at work that evening, Oxendine telephoned home and talked to Jeffrey, who complained of stomach pains. When Oxendine returned home from work, he saw bruises on Jeffrey and knew that Tyree had beaten the child during the day. Although Jeffrey continued to complain of a stomachache, he apparently did not tell his father how or when he received the bruises.

The next morning at approximately 7:30 a.m., Oxendine went into Jeffrey’s bedroom and began screaming at him to get up. A neighbor in the same apartment building testified to hearing sounds coming from the room of blows being struck, obscenities uttered by a male voice, and cries from a child saying, “Please stop, Daddy, it hurts.” After hearing these sounds continue for what seemed like five to ten minutes, the witness heard a final noise consisting of a loud thump, as if someone had been kicked or punched “with a great blow.”

Later that day, Jeffrey’s abdomen became swollen. When Oxendine arrived home from work at about 5:00 p.m., Tyree told him of Jeffrey’s condition and urged him to take Jeffrey to the hospital. Oxen-dine, apparently believing that Jeffrey was exaggerating his discomfort, went out, bought a newspaper, and returned home to read it. Upon his return, Tyree had prepared to take Jeffrey to the hospital. En route, Jeffrey stopped breathing; and was pronounced dead shortly after his arrival at the hospital.

I

In order to convict Oxendine of manslaughter, the State had to show that his conduct caused Jeffrey’s death. 11 Del. C. § 261 defines causation as the “antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred.” 11 Del.C. § 261. At trial, the State’s original theories of causation were, alternatively, (1) a “combined direct effect,” or (2) an “aggravation” theory-

During its case-in-chief, the State called medical examiners Dr. Inguito and Dr. Hameli, who both testified that Jeffrey’s death was caused by intra-abdominal hemorrhage and acute peritonitis, occurring as a result of blunt force trauma to the front of the abdomen. Similarly, each pathologist identified two distinct injuries, one caused more than twenty-four hours before death, and one inflicted less than twenty-four hours before death.

*872Dr. Inguito could not separate the effects of the two injuries. In his view, it was possible that both the older and more recent hemorrhage could have contributed to the death of the child, but he was unable to tell which of the hemorrhages caused the death of the child. Dr. Inguito could not place any quantitative value on either of the hemorrhages nor could he state whether the fresh hemorrhage or the older hemorrhage caused the death. The prosecutor never asked, nor did Dr. Inguito give, an opinion on whether the second hemorrhage accelerated Jeffrey’s death.

Dr. Hameli, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the earlier injury was the underlying cause of death. According to him, the later injury, i.e., the second hemorrhage, “was an aggravating, and probably some factors [sic] contributing,” but it was the earlier injury that was the plain underlying cause of death.

The prosecutor, however, did explicitly ask Dr. Hameli if the second injury accelerated Jeffrey’s death. The relevant portion of the testimony is as follows:

Prosecutor: Dr. Hameli, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty and in your expert opinion, did the second hemorrhage accelerate this child’s death?

Hameli: I do not know. If you are talking about timewise — I assume that’s what you are talking about, exploration.

Prosecutor: You cannot give an opinion of that area; is that correct?

Hameli: No.

Oxendine moved for judgment of acquittal at the end of the State’s case-in-chief. The Trial Court, however, denied his motion.

As part of her case, codefendant Tyree called Dr. Hofman, a medical examiner, who disagreed about the number of injuries. He perceived only one injury inflicted about twelve hours before death. Subsequently, the prosecutor asked Hofman the following hypothetical question that assumed two blows when Hofman only testified as to one blow:

Prosecutor: In your expert medical opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, if this child, given his weakened state as a result of the significant trauma to his abdominal cavity, suffered subsequently another blunt force trauma to the same area, would it accelerate this child’s death?

******

Hofman: My opinion, as in a general statement, not knowing this child, it certainly would have an impact on shortening this child’s life.

Prosecutor: Is then, therefore, your answer yes?

Hofman: Yes.

At the end of trial, Oxendine again moved for judgment of acquittal. The Trial Court denied the motion and instructed the jury on the elements of recklessness, causation and on various lesser included offenses. The ultimate and only theory of causation on which the jury was charged was based on “acceleration.” The Trial Court instructed the jury that “[a] defendant who causes the death of another ... is not relieved of responsibility for causing the death if another later injury accelerates, that is, hastens the death of the other person. Contribution without acceleration is not sufficient.” As previously noted, the jury returned verdicts of manslaughter against Oxendine and Tyree.

II

In this case, the evidence established that Oxendine inflicted a nonlethal injury upon Jeffrey after his son had, twenty-four hours earlier, sustained a lethal injury from a previous beating inflicted by Tyree. Thus, for Oxendine to be convicted of manslaughter in this factual context, the State was required to show for purposes of causation under 11 Del. C. § 261 that Oxen-dine’s conduct hastened or accelerated the child’s death. The Superior Court correctly *873instructed the jury that “[contribution [or aggravation] without acceleration is insufficient to establish causation.” We do not equate aggravation with acceleration. It is possible to make the victim’s pain more intense, i.e., aggravate the injury, without accelerating the time of the victim’s death. Thus, in terms of section 261, and as applied to defendant, the relevant inquiry is: but for his infliction of the second injury, would the victim have died when he died? If the second injury caused his son to die any sooner, then defendant, who inflicted the second injury, would be deemed to have caused his son’s death within the definition of section 261.

A finding of medical causation may not be based on speculation or conjecture. Riegel v. Aastad, Del.Supr., 272 A.2d 715, 718 (1970). See also Healy v. White, Conn.Supr., 173 Conn. 438, 378 A.2d 540 (1977); Gradel v. Inouye, Pa.Supr., 491 Pa. 534, 421 A.2d 674 (1980); Evans v. Liguori, R.I.Supr., 118 R.I. 389, 374 A.2d 774 (1977). A doctor’s testimony that a certain thing is possible is no evidence at all. Palace Bar, Inc. v. Fearnot, Ind.Supr., 269 Ind. 405, 381 N.E.2d 858, 864 (1978). His opinion as to what is possible is no more valid than the jury’s own speculation as to what is or is not possible. Id. Almost anything is possible, and it is improper to allow a jury to consider and base a verdict upon a “possible” cause of death. Id. Therefore, a doctor’s testimony can only be considered evidence when his conclusions are based on reasonable medical certainty that a fact is true or untrue. Id.

The State’s expert medical testimony, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was (1) insufficient to sustain the State’s original theories of causation (a “combined direct effect” or an “aggravation” theory); and (2) insufficient to sustain the State’s ultimate theory of causation (“acceleration”) on which the court instructed the jury. Both of the State’s expert witnesses, Dr. Inguito and Dr. Hameli, were unable to state with any degree of medical certainty that the second injury contributed to the death of the child. Dr. Inguito could only testify that it was possible that both the older and more recent hemorrhage could have contributed to the death of the child. As for Dr. Hameli, he testified that the second injury independent of the first injury could have caused death but probably would not cause death. Furthermore, Dr. Hameli explicitly stated that he could not give an opinion as to whether the second injury accelerated Jeffrey’s death. Similarly, Dr. Inguito was neither asked nor did he offer an opinion about acceleration.

The record establishes that the only theory of causation under which the State submitted the case to the jury was the acceleration theory. The State apparently abandoned its initial theories of causation and adopted the acceleration theory as the cause of death, based on the testimony of Dr. Hofman, a witness for codefendant Tyree, recalled by the State on rebuttal. That was too late to sustain the State's case-in-chief for manslaughter.

The State concedes that when it closed its case-in-chief it did not have a prima facie case to support acceleration. Therefore, even though the State could, based on Dr. Hofman’s testimony, establish a prima facie case of acceleration at the end of the trial, Oxendine’s conviction of manslaughter must be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to establish that his conduct accelerated Jeffrey’s death.

Furthermore, even if the State’s evidence was sufficient to sustain its original theories of causation, we could not affirm Ox-endine’s conviction because the jury was not instructed on either of these theories. Although the State may submit alternate theories of causation to the jury, if supported by the evidence, it must establish in its case-in-chief a prima facie basis for each theory that goes to the jury.4 In this case, the State did not maintain alternate theories throughout the trial. The State abandoned and completely changed its section 261 theories of causation after it closed its *874case-in-chief. The ultimate and only theory (“acceleration”) on which the court instructed the jury was different and not compatible with the State’s original theories of causation that it attempted to establish during its case-in-chief. As previously noted, acceleration is not synonymous with either aggravation or the combined effects of two injuries. Thus, when the State was unable to establish at the end of its case-in-chief a prima facie case for acceleration, its case for manslaughter failed.

It is extremely “difficult to be objective about the death of a child_ Those responsible ought to be punished. Nevertheless, there must be proof as to who, if anyone, inflicted the injuries that resulted in death.” State v. Lynn, Wash.Supr., 73 Wash.2d 117, 436 P.2d 463, 466 (1968) (en banc). “Reprehensible and repulsive as the conduct of the defendant is, nevertheless it is not proof of manslaughter.” State v. Guiles, Wash.Supr., 53 Wash.2d 386, 333 P.2d 923, 924 (1959).

The Trial Court, however, properly denied Oxendine’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case because its medical testimony was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Oxendine was guilty of the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, 11 Del. C. § 612(1). Therefore, we reverse Oxen-dine’s conviction of manslaughter and remand the case to Superior Court for entry of a judgment of conviction and resentence of defendant for the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree.

* * *

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWYER, P.J.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) or while visibly impaired (OWVD and thereby causing death.1 He was sentenced to serve 3 to 15 years in prison. He now appeals and we reverse and remand.

At 2:00 a.m. on November 23, 2003, defendant was driving his sport utility vehicle (SUV) east on 17 Mile Road in northern Kent County. He attempted to turn north onto Edgerton Avenue and drove into the path of an oncoming car driven by Jason Reichelt. Reichelt’s car hit defendant’s SUV and spun 180 degrees, coming to rest on the centerline of 17 Mile Road. The SUV came *604to rest on the side of the road. It was later determined that defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16, which is twice the legal limit.2

Reichelt and his passenger, Jonathan Keiser, were not seriously injured, but Reichelt’s car was severely damaged and the headlights stopped working. Both men left the car and walked to the SUV to determine if anyone was injured. After speaking briefly with defendant, the two men walked back to Reichelt’s car. Reichelt indicated that he was aware that oncoming cars could hit his darkened car and that he wanted to determine if he could turn on the flashers. As Reichelt and Keiser stood by the car, an oncoming car driven by Tonya Welch hit Keiser, killing him.

At the center of this appeal is the issue of causation. Defendant argues that not only did the trial court improperly instruct the jury on causation, there was also insufficient evidence of causation to establish defendant’s guilt. Because the two issues are intertwined with the question of what must be proven to establish causation in such a case, we shall analyze both issues together beginning with a determination of what the prosecutor must show to establish causation.

As the Supreme Court discussed in People v Schaefer,3 causation consists of two components:

In criminal jurisprudence, the causation element of an offense is generally comprised of two components: factual cause and proximate cause. The concept of factual causation is relatively straightforward. In determining whether a defendant’s conduct is a factual cause of the result, one must ask, “but for” the defendant’s conduct, would the result have occurred? If the result would not have occurred absent the defendant’s conduct, then factual causation exists.

*605The existence of factual causation alone, however, will not support the imposition of criminal liability. Proximate causation must also be established. As we noted in [People v] Tims[, 449 Mich 83, 96; 534 NW2d 675 (1995)], proximate causation is a “legal colloquialism.” It is a legal construct designed to prevent criminal liability from attaching when the result of the defendant’s conduct is viewed as too remote or unnatural. Thus, a proximate cause is simply a factual cause “of which the law will take cognizance.”[4]

We initially note that there is no dispute at this point that defendant was intoxicated and that his driving was the cause of the initial accident.4 5 Furthermore, there is no argument that defendant’s driving was the factual or “but-for” cause of the second accident. This analysis is relatively straightforward: but for defendant causing the initial accident, the subsequent accident would not have occurred.

Of course, factual causation is relatively easy to establish. As the court in Welch v State observed, “[m]ankind might still be in Eden, but for Adam’s biting an apple.”6 But the question whether defendant is the proximate cause of the subsequent accident, and thus of the victim’s death, is not so easily resolved. Schaefer discussed this requirement in further detail:

For a defendant’s conduct to be regarded as a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be a “direct and natural result” of the defendant’s actions. In making this determination, it is necessary to examine whether there was an *606intervening cause that superseded the defendant’s conduct such that the causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s injury was broken. If an intervening cause did indeed supersede the defendant’s act as a legally significant causal factor, then the defendant’s conduct will not be deemed a proximate cause of the victim’s injury.

The standard by which to gauge whether an intervening cause supersedes, and thus severs the causal link, is generally one of reasonable foreseeability. For example, suppose that a defendant stabs a victim and the victim is then taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. If the physician is negligent in providing medical care to the victim and the victim later dies, the defendant is still considered to have proximately caused the victim’s death because it is reasonably foreseeable that negligent medical care might be provided. At the same time, gross negligence or intentional misconduct by a treating physician is not reasonably foreseeable, and would thus break the causal chain between the defendant and the victim.

The linchpin in the superseding cause analysis, therefore, is whether the intervening cause was foreseeable based on an objective standard of reasonableness. If it was reasonably foreseeable, then the defendant’s conduct will be considered a proximate cause. If, however, the intervening act by the victim or a third party was not reasonably foreseeable — e.g., gross negligence or intentional misconduct — then generally the causal link is severed and the defendant’s conduct is not regarded as a proximate cause of the victim’s injury or death.[7]

With these basic principles in mind, we conclude that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the issue of proximate cause. We review claims of instructional error de novo.8 The trial court is required to instruct jurors on “all elements of the crime charged and must not exclude consideration of material issues, *607defenses, and theories for which there is supporting evidence.”9 Instructions are to be read as a whole and not piecemeal to determine if error requiring reversal occurred.10 “It is error for the trial court to give an erroneous or misleading jury instruction on an essential element of the offense.”11

The trial court gave detailed and extensive instructions on factual causation, including reinforcement of the concept that defendant had to he “a” cause of the accident, but not necessarily “the” cause of the accident. But the trial court’s instructions on proximate cause and superseding intervening causes were virtually nonexistent. The trial court did implicitly touch on the issue of proximate cause when it instructed the jury that one of several causes “is a substantial factor in causing a death if, but for that cause’s contribution, the death would not have occurred, unless the death was an utterly unnatural result of whatever happened.” But the instructions also told the jury that another cause could be a superseding cause only if it was the sole cause:

Now it also necessarily follows that somebody else’s conduct, for example, by Mr. Keiser, or by some third party, even if that other conduct was wrong or itself negligent, does not cut off criminal liability unless the other cause was the only cause. Obviously, if somebody else’s conduct was the only reason Mr. Keiser died, then it can’t possibly be something to which Mr. Rideout contributed.

This is not a correct statement of the law. A superseding intervening cause does not need to be the only cause. Indeed, as the Court noted in Schaefer, while the defendant’s conduct in that cause was a factual cause of *608the accident, the victim’s conduct may also have been a cause and, more to the point, potentially a superseding cause.12 The effect of the trial court’s instructions was that the jury could convict defendant if they found him to be a factual cause of the accident and that the jury could find the existence of a superseding intervening cause only if that superseding intervening cause was the only cause of the second accident. The jury was not adequately instructed on the issues of proximate and intervening causes.13

This conclusion is enough to set aside defendant’s conviction, with directions to the trial court to properly instruct the jury on the causation issue. But we agree with defendant that the problem in this case goes even deeper, because there was insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause at all. We review a claim of insufficient evidence in a criminal trial de novo.14 We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the essential elements of the crime were established.15

The troubling aspect of this case is that the second accident only occurred after Keiser had reached a position of safety (the side of the road) and then chose to reenter the roadway with Reichelt to check on the car. While foreseeability is the “linchpin” of the superseding causation analysis,16 and it is at least arguably foreseeable that a person involved in an accident would *609check on his or her vehicle even if it remains on the road, the analysis does not end there. As Professor Dressier discusses in Understanding Criminal Law (3d ed),17 there is no universal test for determining if an intervening cause is also a superseding cause:

One early twentieth century scholar observed that all efforts to set down universal tests that explain the law of causation are “demonstrably erroneous.” [Jeremiah Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort, 25 Harv L R 223, 317 (1912).] There are no hard-and-fast rules for determining when an intervening cause supersedes the defendant’s conduct. However, there are various factors that assist the factfinder in the evaluative process.

Indeed, Dressier18 points out that to say that foreseeability is the “linchpin” is “a slight overstatement,” though it is of great significance. Rather, Dressier19 discusses six factors to be considered in determining if an intervening cause is a superseding cause.

Of the six factors discussed by Dressier, three are not relevant here. They are the (1) de minimis contribution to social harm factor, (2) the intended-consequences doctrine, and (3) the omissions factor.20 The foreseeability factor is relevant here, but its application is less than clear. As Dressier points out, a responsive intervening cause will establish proximate cause, while a coincidental intervening cause will not unless it was foreseeable.21 In discussing responsive intervening causes, Dressier points to the examples of a passenger in a capsized boat drowning while attempting to swim to shore and a wounded victim being negligently treated *610and dying. That is, the harm results from actions taken in response to the defendant’s conduct. A coincidental intervening cause would exist, for example, where the defendant’s conduct put the victim in the “wrong place at the wrong time,” such as an assault victim who is attacked by a “knife-wielding maniac” while waiting in the emergency room for treatment of the initial wounds.22

Whether the intervening cause is responsive or coincidental in the case at bar is arguable at best. On the one hand, the victim reentering the roadway to check on the vehicle was in direct response to the accident, though not in direct response to defendant’s having driven. On the other hand, Welch’s driving down the road when she did was entirely coincidental.

In our view, Reiser’s decision to reenter the roadway renders the foreseeability factor of little value to the analysis. Rather, that decision directly involves the two remaining factors identified by Dressier that are present here. Those two factors, we believe, compel the conclusion that the intervening cause of the second accident was also a superseding cause.

First, there is the apparent-safety doctrine, which Dressier describes as follows:

One scholar has observed that when a “defendant’s active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer.” [Joseph H. Beale, The Proximate Consequences of an Act, 33 Harv L R 633, 651 (1920).] For example, consider a somewhat simplified version of the facts in State v Preslar [48 NC 421 (1856)]: D threatened the life of V, his spouse. As a consequence, V was forced to leave the house on a freezing night in order to protect herself. V walked to within 200 yards of her father’s home, where she would have been welcome, but she chose *611to spend the night in the extreme cold, rather than bother her father by entering the house. V froze to death during the night. Clearly, D was an actual cause of V’s death: but for D’s threatening conduct, V would not have gone out into the cold. But, V’s decision to sleep outside was also a but-for cause of her own death. Is D the proximate cause of V’s death? The court in Preslar answered this question in the negative.

The result may be explained in terms of the apparent-safety doctrine. D did not follow V from their home. When V reached the vicinity of her father’s house, she knew that she could enter and be free from immediate harm. Therefore, her decision to sleep outside constituted a superseding intervening cause.[23]

Similarly, in the case at bar, Reiser had reached a position of apparent safety: he had gotten out of the vehicle and was alongside the road, off the pavement. Had the second accident occurred before Reiser could extricate himself from the Reichelt vehicle and get to the side of the road, then the causal chain would have been intact. But he was able to get out of harm’s way and to a relatively safe position at the side of the road. He then made the choice to return to the roadway and place himself in a more dangerous position. Like the victim in Preslar, Reiser made a decision regarding his actions after the immediate danger was over. And that decision, like the decision in Preslar, ended the initial causal chain and started a new one, one for which defendant was not responsible.

The point of a person making a decision brings us to the remaining factor discussed in Dressier, that of voluntary human intervention:

A defendant is far more apt to be relieved of criminal responsibility in the case of a “free, deliberate, and informed” [Hart & Honoré, Causation in the Law (2d ed *6121985), p 326] — a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent— human agent than in the case of an intervention of a natural force or the actions of a person whose conduct is not fully free. The result in the Preslar case, described [above], can be explained in terms of this factor. V chose to sleep in the cold rather than to enter her father’s home. Her decision was free, deliberate, and with full knowledge of the fact that it was exceedingly cold outside. Under these circumstances, the responsibility for her death is shifted from D to V. This outcome is consistent with the retributive principle that accords special significance to the freewill actions of human agents.[24]

Similarly, in the case at bar, Reiser made the voluntary decision to return to the vehicle on the roadway, despite the danger that it posed. He could have chosen to remain on the side of the road. He chose instead to reenter the roadway, with the danger of standing in the roadway next to an unlit vehicle in the middle of the night being readily apparent.

In sum, we conclude that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that defendant’s actions were a proximate cause of Reiser’s death. Therefore, we vacate defendant’s conviction for OWI/OWVT causing death.

There remains the problem of the remedy. Under People v Randolph,25 while defendant cannot be retried on the charge for which we found insufficient evidence, we can direct the entry of a conviction for a necessarily included lesser offense on which the jury was instructed. In this case, the jury was instructed on two lesser offenses: operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor26 and operating a *613motor vehicle while visibly impaired (OWVI).27 A charge of OWI/OWVI causing death may be based on the commission of either of those offenses. MCL 257.625(4). Therefore, in convicting defendant of OWI/OWVI causing death, the jury of necessity had to find that defendant was either operating while intoxicated or operating while visibly impaired. But the nature of the verdict form renders it impossible to determine which of the two the jury found to be the case. Accordingly, we believe that the appropriate remedy is to direct the trial court to enter a conviction for the lesser offense, OWVI, and to sentence defendant for that offense. If the prosecutor believes that a conviction on the greater offense of OWI28 would better serve the interests of justice, he may, at any time before sentencing, inform the trial court that he wishes to try defendant on a charge of OWI instead of a conviction being entered under MCL 257.625(3).

In light of our resolution of the above issues, we need not decide defendant’s remaining issue.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

HUBBART, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant Isaac Alejandro Velazquez from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for vehicular homicide which was entered below upon a nolo contendere plea. The defendant, upon entry of such plea, specifically reserved for appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the information herein under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The sole issue presented for review is whether a defendant driver of a motor vehicle who participates in a reckless and illegal “drag race” on a public road may be properly convicted of vehicular homicide [§ 782.071, Fla.Stat. (1987)] for the death of one of the co-participant drivers suffered in the course of the “drag race” — when the sole basis for imposing liability is the defendant’s participation in said race. We hold that the defendant may not be held criminally liable under the above statute in such case because the co-participant driver, in effect, killed himself by his voluntary and reckless driving in the subject “drag race” and thus the defendant’s actions in engaging in the said race was not a proximate cause of the co-participant’s death.

I

The defendant Velazquez was charged by information with the crime of vehicular homicide. Specifically, the information alleged that on April 23, 1988, the defendant

“did unlawfully and feloniously operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, to wit: Participated in a DRAG RACE, RAN A STOP SIGN and EXCEEDED the SPEED LIMIT with his VEHICLE, and thereby cause the death of ADAL-BERTO ALVAREZ, in violation of 782.-071 Florida Statutes.”

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss this information under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) on the ground that the undisputed material facts in the case demonstrated that the state did not, as a matter of law, have a prima facie case of vehicular homicide against the defendant. The defendant set forth in the motion to dismiss certain facts which he swore to be true in open court at the hearing on the subject motion.1 The *349state filed a traverse in which it altered one non-material fact stated in the motion to dismiss and added an additional set of facts based on sworn depositions taken in the case. Accepting the sworn facts stated in the motion to dismiss, as supplemented and altered by the traverse, the material undisputed facts in the case are as follows.

On April 23, 1988, at approximately 2:30 A.M., the defendant Velazquez met the deceased Adalberto Alvarez at a Hardee’s restaurant in Hialeah, Florida. The two had never previously met, but in the course of their conversation agreed to race each other in a “drag race” with their respective automobiles. They, accordingly, left the restaurant and proceeded to set up a quarter-mile “drag race” course on a nearby public road which ran perpendicular to a canal alongside the Palmetto Expressway in Hialeah; a guardrail and a visible stop sign2 stood between the end of this road and the canal. The two men began their “drag race” at the end of this road and proceeded away from the canal in a westerly direction for one-quarter mile. Upon completing the course without incident, the deceased Alvarez suddenly turned his automobile 180 degrees around and proceeded east toward the starting line and the canal; the defendant Velazquez did the same and followed behind Alvarez. Alvarez proceeded in the lead and attained an estimated speed of 123 m.p.h.; he was not wearing a seat belt and subsequent investigation revealed that he had a blood alcohol level between .11 and .12. The defendant Velazquez, who had not been drinking, trailed Alvarez the entire distance back to the starting line and attained an estimated speed of 98 m.p.h. As both drivers approached the end of the road, they applied their brakes, but neither could stop. Alvarez, who was about a car length ahead of the defendant Velazquez, crashed through the guardrail first and was propelled over the entire canal, landing on its far bank; he was thrown from his car upon impact, was pinned under his vehicle when it landed on him, and died instantly from the resulting injuries. The defendant also crashed through the guardrail, but landed in the canal where he was able to escape from his vehicle and swim to safety uninjured.

Based on these facts, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether the defendant’s participation in the “drag race” was a sufficient legal cause of the deceased’s death so as to support a conviction for vehicular homicide. The defendant subsequently entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; the trial court then placed the defendant on four years probation. This appeal follows.

II

The vehicular homicide statute, under which the defendant was charged and convicted, provides as follows:

“ ‘Vehicular homicide’ is the killing of a human being by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vehicular homicide is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.-083, or s. 775.084.”

§ 782.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). There are two statutory elements to vehicular homi-cide: (1) the defendant must operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another, and (2) this reckless operation of a *350motor vehicle must be the proximate cause of the death of a human being. Byrd v. State, 531 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); M.C.J. v. State, 444 So.2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 849 (Fla.1984); J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980); compare Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 72 (1989) (vehicular homicide).

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, we have no trouble in concluding that the first element of this offense is clearly established on this record. Plainly, the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another, in that (a) he participated in a highly dangerous “drag race” with the deceased on a public road in which both lanes were used as a speedway, and (b) he drove his vehicle at the excessive speed of 98 m.p.h. during the “drag race.” Without question, the defendant’s motor vehicle operation endangered the lives of all persons in the vicinity of the “drag race,” namely, people in other motor vehicles and nearby pedestrians. See McCreary v. State, 371 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1979).

The second element of this offense, however, has given us considerable pause, as no doubt it did the trial court, because no endangered third party in the vicinity of the “drag race” was killed in this case; moreover, it is here that the parties to this appeal marshal their primary authorities and argument. It is therefore necessary that we consult the Florida law on this subject, and survey as well the relevant law thereon throughout the country. Nonetheless, we approach this subject with a certain degree of caution, mindful that the problems raised by the element of “proximate cause” in cases of this nature “present enormous difficulty (especially in homicide [cases]) because of the obscurity of that concept,” an obscurity which has resulted in the announcement of “varying and sometimes inconsistent rules in the numerous areas in which the problem has arisen.” Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 comment 1, at 255-56 (1985).

A

At the outset, it seems clear that the proximate cause element of vehicular homicide in Florida embraces, at the very least, a causation-in-fact test; that is, the defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle must be a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being. In this respect, vehicular homicide is no different than any other criminal offense in which the occurrence of a specified result, caused by a defendant’s conduct, is an essential element of the offense — such as murder, [§ 782.04, Fla.Stat. (1989)], manslaughter [§ 782.07, Fla.Stat. (1989)], aggravated battery [§ 784.045, Fla.Stat. (1989) ], and arson [§ 806.01, Fla. Stat. (1989) ]. Clearly there can be no criminal liability for such result-type offenses unless it can be shown that the defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result, whether the result be the death of a human being, personal injury to another, or injury to another’s property. To be sure, this cause-in-fact showing is insufficient in itself to establish the aforesaid “proximate cause” element in a vehicular homicide case, but it is clearly a sine qua non ingredient thereof. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(a),(b), at 390-96 (1986); Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 explanatory note, at 254 (1985).

Courts throughout the country have uniformly followed the traditional “but for” test in determining whether the defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of a prohibited consequence in result-type offenses such as vehicular homicide. Under this test, a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result if the said result would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct; stated differently, the defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a particular result if the result would not have happened in the absence of the defendant’s conduct. Thus, a defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle is a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being under Florida’s vehicular homicide statute [§ 782.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1987)] if the subject death would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s reckless driving or *351would not have happened in the absence of such driving. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(b), at 393-94 (1986); Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 2.03 and comment 2, at 257-58 (1985); compare Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 17-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

In relatively rare cases, however, the “but for” test for causation-in-fact fails and has been abandoned in favor of the “substantial factor” test. This anomaly occurs when two defendants, acting independently and not in concert with one another, commit two separate acts, each of which alone is sufficient to bring about the prohibited result — as when two defendants concurrently inflict mortal wounds upon a human being, each of which is sufficient to cause death. In such case, each defendant’s action was not a “but for” cause of death because the deceased would have died even in the absence of each defendant’s conduct — although obviously not in the absence of both defendants’ conduct considered together. In these rare cases, the courts have followed a “substantial factor” test, namely, the defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result if the subject conduct was a “substantial factor” in bringing about the said result. Thus, each defendant’s conduct in independently and concurrently inflicting mortal wounds on a deceased clearly constitutes a “substantial factor” in bringing about the deceased’s death, and, consequently, is a cause-in-fact of the deceased’s death. 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(b), at 394-95 (1986); compare Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

B

The “proximate cause” element of vehicular homicide in Florida embraces more, however, than the aforesaid “but for” causation-in-fact test as modified by the “substantial factor” exception. Even where a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result, as where a defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle is a cause-in-fact of the death of a human being, Florida and other courts throughout the country have for good reason declined to impose criminal liability (1) where the prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct, or (b) where it would otherwise be unjust, based on fairness and policy considerations, to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the prohibited result. See 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12(c)-(h), at 396-421 (1986), and cases collected; compare M.C.J. v. State, 444 So.2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 849 (Fla.1984); Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So.2d 14, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

In deaths resulting from illegal “drag racing” on a public road, as here, it has been held in Florida that the driver of one of the racing vehicles was properly convicted of manslaughter when the driver of another vehicle in the race collided head on with a non-participant motor vehicle which was lawfully using the subject highway, killing the driver of same. Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). The court reasoned that the defendant, by participating in the “drag race,” was aiding and abetting each of the other participant drivers in the race in committing reckless driving — so that when one of the participants committed a manslaughter in the course of the race against a third party, the defendant was also guilty of manslaughter. In reaching this result, the court relied on the following rules of law stated by Wharton and Clark & Marshall:

“ ‘ * * * If each of two persons jointly engage in the commission of acts which amount to criminal negligence, and as a result of which a third person is killed, each may be found guilty of manslaughter even though it may be impossible to say whose act actually caused the death.’

‘There may be principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact to involuntary manslaughter. Thus, if two men drive separate vehicles at a furious and dangerous speed along the *352highway, each inciting and abetting the other, and one of them drives over and kills a person, the one thus causing the death is guilty of manslaughter as principal in the first degree, and the other is guilty as principal in the second degree. * * *

Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d at 716 (quoting 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 290 (Anderson 1957) and Clark & Marshall, Crimes, 3d ed. § 164) (emphasis added).

Where, however, a participant passenger in such an illegal “drag race,” accidently grabs the steering wheel of a vehicle involved in the race, instead of the gear shift he was assigned to operate, causing the vehicle to go out of control, crash, and kill the passenger — this court has held that the defendant driver of the subject motor vehicle was improperly convicted of vehicular homicide. J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980). The court reasoned that the passenger’s reckless act of grabbing the steering wheel was an independent intervening act which superseded the respondent’s wrongful conduct in participating in the “drag race.” Id. at 607. Although, obviously, the respondent’s participation in the subject race was a “but for” cause-in-fact of the passenger’s death and such death was plainly within the scope of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct in participating in the race — this court nonetheless implicitly concluded that it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the passenger’s death because the passenger, in effect, killed himself by his own reckless conduct.

The result reached in J.A.C. is in accord with the weight of better-reasoned decisions on this subject throughout the country. These courts have uniformly concluded that a driver-participant in an illegal “drag race” on a public road cannot be held criminally responsible for the death of another driver participant when (a) the deceased, in effect, kills himself by his own reckless driving during the race, and (b) the sole basis for attaching criminal liability for his death is the defendant’s participation in the “drag race.” 3 The policy reasons for reaching this result are best expressed in State v. Petersen, 17 Or.App. 478, 495, 522 P.2d 912, 920 (1974) (Schwab, C.J., dissenting) (dissent adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court in State v. Petersen, 270 Or. 166, 526 P.2d 1008 (1974)):

“[T]he question is whether defendant’s reckless conduct ‘caused’ the death of the victim. The problem here is not ‘causation in fact,’ it is ‘legal causation.’ In unusual cases like this one, whether certain conduct is deemed to be the legal cause of a certain result is ultimately a policy question. The question of legal causation thus blends into the question of whether we are willing to hold a defendant responsible for a prohibited result. Or, stated differently, the issue is not causation, it is responsibility. In my opinion, policy considerations are against imposing responsibility for the death of a participant in a race on the surviving racer when his sole contribution to the death is the participation in the activity mutually agreed upon.

It is not unheard of for people to engage in hazardous vocations and avocations. It could be said, for example, that professional racetrack drivers earn their living by consciously disregarding a substantial risk that death will occur on the racetrack. Yet, it would probably strike most people as strange if the surviving drivers were prosecuted for manslaughter following a fatal racetrack acci-' dent....

My point is that people frequently join together in reckless conduct. As long as all participants do so knowingly and voluntarily, I see no point in holding the survivor(s) guilty of manslaughter if the reckless conduct results in death.... ”

*353522 P.2d at 920-21 (citations and footnote omitted). LaFave and Scott also summarize the legal basis for these decisions:

“It is submitted that the true reason for the holding [in these cases] is the court’s feeling ... that A should not, in all justice, be held for the death of B who was an equally willing and foolhardy participant in the bad conduct which caused his death.”

1 W. LaFave and A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12, at 418 (1986).

Ill

Turning now to the instant case, it is clear that the defendant’s reckless operation of a motor vehicle in participating in the “drag race” with the deceased was, technically speaking, a cause-in-fact of the deceased’s death under the “but for” test. But for the defendant’s participation in the subject race, the deceased would not have recklessly raced his vehicle at all and thus would not have been killed. However, under the authority of J.A.C. and the better reasoned decisions throughout the country, the defendant’s participation in the subject “drag race” was not a proximate cause of the deceased’s death because, simply put, the deceased, in effect, killed himself by his own volitional reckless driving—and, consequently, it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for this death.

The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that the “drag race” was, in effect, over when the defendant and the deceased had completed the agreed-upon one-quarter mile course and had crossed the finish line. Unexpectedly, however, the deceased suddenly whirled his vehicle around and headed back toward the starting line and the canal which ran perpendicular to the road on which he was travelling; although the defendant then followed, it is plain that it was the deceased's sole decision to return to the starting line, as apparently this had not previously been agreed upon. At any rate, the deceased, who had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and was wearing no seat belt, attained an estimated speed of 123 m.p.h. on his return trip; applied the brakes as he approached the end of the road but was unable to stop; crashed through a protective guard rail; and incredibly vaulted the entire canal, landing on the far bank. He was thrown from his vehicle upon impact, was pinned under the vehicle when it landed on him, and died instantly from the resulting injuries. Although the defendant was about one-car length in back of the deceased during the deceased’s fatal return to the starting line, the defendant at no time struck the deceased's vehicle and did not physically propel it in any way across the canal. Clearly, the deceased was on a near-suicide mission when, on his own hook, he returned to the starting line of the race after the race was apparently over, attaining a murderous speed of 123 m.p.h., vaulted a canal, and killed himself. This being so, it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the deceased’s unexpected and near-suicidal conduct.

We agree that if the deceased had collided with an oncoming motorist who happened to be in the vicinity lawfully using the subject road resulting in the said motorist’s death, the defendant would be criminally liable for this death on an aiding- and-abetting theory; clearly, the deceased would be guilty of vehicular homicide in killing the oncoming motorist, and the defendant, in participating in the illegal “drag race,” would be aiding and abetting the deceased in the latter’s reckless driving and ultimate negligent homicide. Jacobs v. State, 184 So.2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). In such a case, however, the oncoming motorist could in no way be said to be responsible for his own death and, consequently, no policy or fairness reason would exist for finding no proximate cause. Clearly, this cannot be said in the instant case.

The state nonetheless relies on cases from other jurisdictions which have reached a contrary result to the one we reach herein.4 We have reviewed these cases, but are not persuaded by their rea-*354soiling because we think they lead to an unjust result. In our judgment, it is simply unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong to say that the defendant in the instant case is criminally responsible for the death of the deceased when it is undisputed that the deceased, in effect, killed himself. No one forced this young man to participate in the subject “drag race”; no one forced him to whirl around and proceed back toward the canal after the race was apparently over; no one forced him to travel 123 m.p.h., vault a canal, and kill himself upon impact. He did all these things himself, and was, accordingly, the major cause of his own death. We are constrained by law to construe criminal statutes strictly in favor of the accused, § 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1989), and, given this salutary principle of statutory construction, we are unwilling to construe our vehicular homicide statute to impose criminal liability on the defendant under the circumstances of this case.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

Gabrielli, J.

Subdivision 2 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law provides, in pertinent part, that “ [a] person is guilty of murder ” when “ [u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person ”.

The factual setting of the bizarre events of a cold winter night of December 30, 1970, as developed by the testimony, *410including the voluntary statements of the defendants, reveal the following: During the early evening the defendants were drinking in a Rochester tavern along withjthe victim, George Stafford. The bartender testified that Stafford was displaying and “ flashing ” one hundred dollar bills, was thoroughly intoxicated and was finally “ shut off ” because of his inebriated condition. At some time between 8:15 and 8:30 p.m., Stafford inquired if someone would give him a ride to Canandaigua, New York, and the defendants, who, according to their statements, •had already decided to steal Stafford’s money, agreed to drive him there in Kibbe’s automobile. The three men left the bar and proceeded to another bar where Stafford was denied service due to his condition. The defendants and Stafford then walked across the street to a third bar where they were served, and each had another drink or two.

After they left the third bar, the three men entered Kibbe’s automobile and began the trip .toward Canandaigua. Krall drove the car while Kibbe demanded that Stafford turn over any money he had. In the course of an exchange, Kibbe slapped Stafford several times, took his money, then compelled him to lower his trousers and to take off his shoes to be certain that Stafford had given up all his money; and when they were satisfied that Stafford had no more money on his person, the defendants forced Stafford to exit the Kibbe vehicle.

As he was thrust from the car, Stafford fell onto the shoulder of the rural two-lane highway on which they had been traveling. His trousers were still down around his ankles, his shirt was rolled up towards his chest, he was shoeless and he had also been stripped of any outer clothing. Before the defendants pulled away, Kibbe placed Stafford’s shoes and jacket on the shoulder of the highway. Although Stafford’s eyeglasses were in the Kibbe vehicle, the defendants, either through inadvertence or perhaps by specific design, did not give them to Stafford before they drove away. It was sometime between 9:30 and 9:40 p.m. when Kibbe and Krall abandoned Stafford on the side of the road. The temperature was near zero, and, although it was not snowing at the time, visibility was occasionally obscured by heavy winds which intermittently blew previously fallen snow into the air and across the highway; and there was snow on both sides of the road as a result of previous *411plowing operations. The structure nearest the point where Stafford was forced from the defendants’ car was a gasoline service station situated nearly one half of a mile away on the other side of the highway. There was no artificial illumination on this segment of the rural highway.

At approximately 10:00 p.m. Michael W. Blake, a college student, was operating his pickup truck in the northbound lane of the highway in question. Two cars, which were approaching from the opposite direction, flashed their headlights at Blake’s vehicle. Immediately after he had passed the second car, Blake saw Stafford sitting in the road in the middle of the northbound lane with his hands up in the air. Blake stated that he was operating his truck at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour, and that he “ didn’t have time to react ” before his vehicle struck Stafford. After he brought his truck to a stop and returned to try to be of assistance to Stafford, Blake observed that the man’s trousers were down around his ankles and his shirt was pulled up around his chest. A Deputy Sheriff called to the accident scene also confirmed the fact that the victim’s trousers were around his ankles, and that Stafford was wearing no shoes or jacket.

At the trial, the Medical Examiner of Monroe County testified that death had occurred fairly rapidly from massive head injuries. In addition, he found proof of a high degree of intoxication with a .25%, by weight, of alcohol concentration in the blood.

For their acts, the defendants were convicted of murder, robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. However, the defendants basically chaEenge only their convictions of murder, claiming that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that their acts “ caused the death of another ”, as required by the statute (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 2). As framed by the Appellate Division (41 A D 2d 228) the only serious question raised by these appeals “ is whether the death was caused by [the defendants’] acts ” (p. 229). In answering this question, we are required to determine whether the defendants may be convicted of murder for the occurrences which have been described. They contend that the actions of Blake, the driver of the pickup truck, constituted both an intervening and superseding cause which relieves them *412of criminal responsibility for Stafford’s death. There is, of course, no statutory provision regarding the effect of an intervening cause of injury as it relates to the criminal responsibility of one who sets in motion the machinery which ultimately results in the victim’s death; and there is surprisingly little case law dealing with the subject. Moreover, analogies to causation in civil cases are neither controlling nor dispositive, since, as this court has previously stated: “ A distance separates the negligence which renders one criminally liable from that which establishes civil liability ” (People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N. Y. 115, 123); and this is due in large measure to the fact that the standard or measure of persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential elements of the crime charged, is beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361). Thus, actions which may serve as a predicate for civil liability may not be sufficient to constitute a basis for the imposition of criminal sanctions because of the different purposes of these two branches of law. Stated another way, the defendants should not be found guilty unless their conduct “ was a cause of death sufficiently direct as to meet the requirements of the criminal, and not the tort, law.” (Commonwealth v. Root, 403 Pa. 571, 575; see, also, People v. Scott, 29 Mich. App. 549.) However, to be a sufficiently direct cause of death so as to warrant the imposition of a criminal penalty therefor, it is not necessary that the ultimate harm be intended by the actor. It will suffice if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt, as indeed it can be here said, that the ultimate harm is something which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused. (1 Wharton, Criminal Law Procedure, § 169.)

In People v. Kane (213 N. Y. 260), the defendant inflicted two serious pistol shot wounds on the body of a pregnant woman. The wounds caused a miscarriage; the miscarriage caused septic peritonitis, and the septic peritonitis, thus induced, caused the woman’s death on the third day after she was shot. Over the defendant’s insistence that there was no causal connection between the wounds and the death and, in fact, that the death was due to the intervention of an outside agency, namely, the negligent and improper medical treatment at the hospital, this court affirmed the conviction “ even though ths *413medical treatment may also have had some causative influence ” (p. 277).

We subscribe to the requirement that the defendants’ actions must be a sufficiently direct cause of the ensuing death before there can be any imposition of criminal liability, and recognize, of course, that this standard is greater than that required to serve as a basis for tort liability. Applying these criteria to the defendants’ actions, we conclude that their activities on the evening of December 30, 1970 were a sufficiently direct cause of the death of George Stafford so as to warrant the imposition of criminal sanctions. In engaging in what may properly be described as a despicable course of action, Kibbe and Krall left a helplessly intoxicated man without his eyeglasses in a position from which, because of these attending circumstances, he could not extricate himself and whose condition was such that he could not even protect himself from the elements. The defendants do not dispute the fact that their conduct evinced a depraved indifference to human life which created a grave risk of death, but rather they argue that it was just as likely that Stafford would be miraculously rescued by a good Samaritan. We cannot accept such an argument. There can be little doubt but that Stafford would have frozen to death in his state of undress had he remained on the shoulder of the road. The only alternative left to him was the highway, which in his condition, for one reason or another, clearly foreboded the probability of his resulting death.

Under the conditions surrounding Blake’s operation of his truck (i.e., the fact that he had his low beams on as the two cars approached; that there was no artificial lighting on the highway; and that there was insufficient time in which to react to Stafford’s presence in his lane), we do not think it may be said that any supervening wrongful act occurred to relieve the defendants from the directly foreseeable consequences of their actions. In short, we will not disturb the jury’s determination that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions came clearly within the statute (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 2) and 11 cause [d] the death of another person ”.

We also reject the defendants’ present claim of error regarding the trial court’s charge. Neither of the defendants took exception or made any request with respect to the charge regard*414ing the cause of death. While the charge might have been more detailed, appellants’ contention that the Appellate Division should have reversed for its claimed inadequacy in the interests of justice (CPL 470.15, subd. 3, par. [c]; subd. 6, par. [a]) may not be here reviewed, for the intermediate appellate court’s refusal to so reverse was exclusively within its discretion (People v. D’Argencour, 95 N. Y. 624; People v. Calabur, 178 N. Y. 463; see, also, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 155).

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur.

Orders affirmed.

*403Roberts, C. J.

These are two indictments, one (No. 70-573) charging the defendant, Henry Rose, with leaving the scene of an accident, death resulting, in violation of *404G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §31-26-l1 and the other (No. 70-572) charging the defendant with manslaughter. The defendant was tried on both indictments to a jury in the Superior Court, and a verdict of guilty was returned in each case. Thereafter the defendant’s motions for a new trial were denied, and he is now prosecuting a bill of exceptions in each case in this court.

These indictments followed the death of David J. Mc-Enery, who was struck by defendant’s motor vehicle at the intersection of Broad and Summer Streets in Providence at about 6:30 p.m. on April 1, 1970. According to the testimony of a bus driver, he had been operating his vehicle north on Broad Street and had stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Summer Street. While the bus was standing there, he observed a pedestrian starting to cross Broad Street, and as the pedestrian reached the middle of the southbound lane he was struck by a “dirty, white station wagon” that was proceeding southerly on Broad Street. The pedestrian’s body was thrown up on the hood of the car. The bus driver further testified that the station wagon stopped momentarily, the body of the pedestrian rolled off the hood, and the car immediately drove off along Broad Street in a southerly direction. The bus operator testified that he had alighted from his bus, intending to attempt to assist the victim, but was unable to locate the body.

Subsequently, it appears from the testimony of a police *405■officer, about 6:40 p.m. the police located a white station wagon on Haskins Street, a distance of some 610 feet from the scene of the accident. The police further testified that a body later identified as that of David J. McEnery was wedged beneath the vehicle when it was found and that the vehicle had been registered to defendant.

Testifying on behalf of the state was a Robert Buckley, who stated that he had worked with defendant and that about 5 p.m. on the day of the accident he had gone to a place located in Central Falls that he identified as The Palms where he met defendant about 5:15 p.m. Buckley further testified that about 7 p.m. that evening defendant phoned him, told him that he had been involved in an accident, and asked Buckley to help him look for his car. According to Buckley, he picked up defendant’s girl friend, identified as Pat, and went to the vicinity of the accident and drove around for some time but was unable to locate the car.

Buckley testified that later he picked up defendant, who asked him to take him to a cafe in Central Falls known as The Well, where he would attempt to establish an alibi. After arriving at The Well, defendant asked Buckley to take him to the Central Falls police station, where defendant reported that his car had been stolen from in front of The Well sometime between 5:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on that day. Buckley later drove defendant to Pat’s home, and while there defendant answered a telephone call. After the telephone call had been completed, defendant told Buckley that “a guy had been killed.” According to Buckley, defendant “was denying it on the ’phone” during the conversation.

We turn, first, to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in each case. It is settled that such a motion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the *406state to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence so adduced is insufficient to meet such burden of proof, it is error to submit the case to a jury. State v. Lisi, 105 R.I. 516, 253 A.2d 239 (1969). In a criminal case the trial justice, in passing on such a motion, is required to give full credibility to the state’s evidence, view it in a light most favorable to the state, and draw therefrom every reasonable inference consistent with guilt. However, where the evidence adduced by the state and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, are insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court must grant the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. State v. Saulnier, 109 R.I. 11, 280 A.2d 85 (1971).

The defendant, contending that the evidence adduced in these cases is entirely circumstantial, urges that to warrant a jury in finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is necessary not only that the evidence be consistent with a conclusion of guilt but must also at the same time be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This, the circumstantial evidence rule, so called, is followed in this state. State v. Franklin, 103 R.I. 715, 241 A.2d 219 (1968); State v. Montella, 88 R.I. 469, 149 A.2d 919 (1959).

While we do not agree as to the character of the evidence, we are unable to perceive that the test of the sufficiency of a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence to determine its adequacy to warrant a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would differ materially from that set out in the circumstantial evidence rule. That rule obviously derives from the fundamental rule applied in all criminal cases to test the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is resorted to, in our opinion, to overcome *407a misconception of the probative thrust of circumstantial evidence, particularly with reference to cases where the findings must rest either entirely or in major part on circumstantial evidence.

It is well settled that there is no valid distinction between the probative force of direct and of circumstantial evidence. Any fact may be established by circumstantial evidence as sufficiently and completely as by positive, direct evidence. State v. Davis, 108 N.H. 45, 226 A.2d 873 (1967); State v. Dancyger, 29 N.J. 76, 148 A.2d 155 (1959); State v. Goodhart, 112 Vt. 154, 22 A.2d 151 (1941); 3 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed. 1955) §980 at 472-73.

Testing the sufficiency of mixed evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt requires the making of no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the exist-1 ence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Nichols v. State, 5 Md. App. 340, 247 A.2d 722 (1968). “ ‘A conclusion of guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof to that extent is proof which precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support, and is consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.’ ” State v. Reid, 154 Conn. 37, 40, 221 A.2d 258, 259 (1966), quoting State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 295, 113 A.2d 591, 596 (1955).

We are persuaded, then, that to test the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt requires that such evidence be consistent only with a reasonable theory of guilt. Where that evidence is consistent with any other reasonable conclusion, *408the guilt of the accused cannot be considered as having been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant here argues that in neither ease did the evidence exclude any reasonable hypothesis or theory of the innocence of defendant. In so arguing in case No. 70-572, charging defendant with manslaughter, defendant directs our attention to the fact that the court charged the jury that there was no evidence in the case of culpable negligence on the part of defendant up to and including the time at which Mr. McEnery was struck by the station wagon. He further charged the jury that, in order to find defendant guilty of manslaughter, it would be necessary to find that McEnery was alive immediately after the impact and that the conduct of defendant following the impact constituted culpable negligence.

The defendant is contending that if the evidence is susceptible of a finding that McEnery was killed upon impact, he was not alive at the time he was being dragged under defendant’s vehicle and defendant could not be found guilty of manslaughter. An examination of the testimony of the only medical witness makes it clear that, in his opinion, death could have resulted immediately upon impact by reason of a massive fracture of the skull. The medical witness also testified that death could have resulted a few minutes after the impact but conceded that he was not sure when it did occur.

We are inclined to agree with defendant’s contention in this respect. Obviously, the evidence is such that death could have occurred after defendant had driven away with McEnery’s body lodged under his car and, therefore, be consistent with guilt. On the other hand, the medical testimony is equally consistent with a finding that McEnery could have died instantly upon impact and, therefore, be consistent with a reasonable conclusion other than the guilt of defendant. It is clear, then, that, the testimony *409of the medical examiner lacking any reasonable medical certainty as to the time of the death of McEnery, we are unable to conclude that on such evidence defendant was guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we conclude, with respect to Indictment No. 70-572, that it was error to deny defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. See State v. Dancyger, supra.

We are unable, however, to reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal with respect to Indictment No. 70-573, in which defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The testimony adduced through the bus driver clearly establishes that at the time McEnery was struck his body was thrown up on the hood of the car and that while the car was standing still the body rolled off the hood and thereupon defendant drove off in a southerly direction. Later, the police found defendant’s station wagon on a side street some 610 feet from the point of impact with McEnery’s body wedged under the front of the car. The circumstances here are clearly consistent with a hypothesis of guilt, but it is clear that they are not consistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. We conclude, therefore, with respect to Indictment No. 70-573, that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.

Because we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in the case charging him with manslaughter, it is unnecessary for us to consider his contentions of error concerning his motion for a new trial in that case.

Therefore, we turn to consider his contention that it was error to deny his motion for a new trial in the case charging him with knowingly leaving the scene of an accident. One seeking to set aside a decision of a trial justice on a motion for a new trial has the burden of showing that *410the trial justice was either clearly wrong or that, in reviewing the evidence and the credibility and weight thereof, he misconceived or overlooked some relevant or material evidence on a controlling issue. State v. Correia, 106 R.I. 655, 262 A.2d 619 (1970); State v. Contreras, 105 R.I. 523, 253 A.2d 612 (1969).

In this case we have closely scrutinized the trial justice’s decision on the motion and are persuaded that he exhaustively examined the evidence and, in an exercise of his own independent judgment, passed upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. He makes it clear in his decision that he found the bus operator, who witnessed the impact, to be entirely credible and that the witness Buckley, who testified as to assisting the defendant to look for his car after the accident, was equally credible. He concluded that their testimony was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge that he had struck McEnery and that McEnery had sustained injuries and that the defendant had, with such knowledge, left the scene. In such circumstances we conclude that it was not error to deny the defendant’s motion for a new trial in this case.

The exception of the defendant to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict in the manslaughter case, Indictment No. 70-572, is sustained, and the judgment of conviction is reversed; all of the defendant’s exceptions to rulings in the case charging him with leaving the scene of an accident, Indictment No. 70-573, are overruled; and both cases are remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

*411Richard J. Israel, Attorney General, Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Attorney General, R. Raymond Greco, Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

Bevilacqua & Cicilline, Anthony S. DelGiudice, for defendant. '