However, you're not responsible for the death if there's an intervening act which actually causes the death, in this case the removal of the feeding tube.
If I shove you off a skyscraper, but somebody shoots you on the way down and kills you, I'm going to be responsible for attempted murder, not the actual murder.
So, even if you had solid proof that Michael tried to kill Terri 15 years ago, the fact that he got a court to order her death is going to be a pretty good defense to a murder charge, assuming that one could even be brought at this date.
At least that's how I remember the discussion in law school. I don't practice criminal law.
Fla. doesn't have stat. of limitations on murder.
If the hospice were struck by lightning and Terri were electrocuted, that principle would probably apply, insofar as a person committing the original assault could not have reasonably anticipated that it would measurably increase the likelihood of the victim's getting struck by lightning.
In the extant situation, however, the "foreseeability" notion counts against Michael, insofar as his retained lawyer deliberately acted to have Terri fatally dehydrated.
Consider a slightly different scenario: suppose it were shown that Bob Smith deliberately battered his wife with the intention and effect of putting her into a persistent vegetative state, and he subsequently got Judge Greer to have her executed. If the facts were as stated, should Bob Smith be prosecuted for anything less than Murder in the First Degree? I would suggest that even if Judge Greer gave the order, the felony murder rule should still be quite applicable.
Florida Republicans need to recognize that if they don't start going after the crooks in their midst, they'll soon end up like the Illinois GOP. Even if they prevent everything from coming out, enough will come out to give a sufficient smell to render those who protected the Pinellas GOP unelectable anywhere else, except in the safest districts.