Posted on 10/22/2015 7:19:44 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
On May 30, 2008, defendant, driving eastbound on Whiskey Road in Suffolk County, entered the westbound lane and struck the vehicle of Robert and Mary Kelly head on, killing them both. At the time of the collision, defendant was 34 weeks pregnant. She was taken to a local hospital where, due to signs of fetal distress, she consented to an emergency cesarean section.
Despite the best efforts of hospital personnel, the baby died six days later. An autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was due to injuries sustained in the accident....
Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant not guilty on all counts except manslaughter in the second degree for the death of her child. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction (113 AD3d 793 [2d Dept 2014]). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal. We now reverse
The underlying facts and circumstances of this appeal are tragic to all parties involved. The sole issue that we reach on this appeal, however, is whether a woman can be convicted of manslaughter for reckless conduct that she engaged in while pregnant that caused injury to the fetus in utero where the child was born alive but died as a result of that injury days later We hold that it is evident from the statutory scheme that the legislature, in enacting Penal Law § 125.05 (1) and § 125.15 (1), did not intend to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for conduct with respect to themselves and their unborn fetuses unless such conduct is done intentionally...
Had the legislature intended to include pregnant women in the class of individuals who may be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree for reckless acts committed while pregnant, resulting in the eventual death of their child, it could clearly have done so. Moreover, had defendant's fetus died in utero, then, plainly, defendant could not have been prosecuted under the manslaughter statute because the fetus would not have fallen under the definition of a "person" ...had defendant not consented to the cesarean section with the result that the child be born alive, she would not have been prosecuted for manslaughter in the second degree. Thus, if we accorded the word "person" the interpretation advocated by the People, it would create a perverse incentive for a pregnant woman to refuse a cesarean section out of fear that if her baby is born alive she would face criminal charges for her alleged reckless conduct, jeopardizing the health of the woman and the unborn fetus. This is plainly not what the legislature intended when it enacted the definition of "person" under section 125.05 (1) or the manslaughter in the second degree offense as delineated in Penal Law § 125.15 (1).
The imposition of criminal liability upon pregnant women for acts committed against a fetus that is later born and subsequently dies as a result of injuries sustained while in utero should be clearly defined by the legislature, not the courts. It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor.
FAHEY, J.(dissenting): I respectfully dissent and would affirm the Appellate Division’s order. I cannot join in a result that analyzes our statutes to determine that a six-day-old child is not a person...
I suppose in your world, a hung jury is well endowed.
Too many judges are INhuman.
That “power” had so much hatred for Christ that it killed
hundreds of very young children rather than to risk Christ
coming of age . . and, even now, the rage is so consuming
that the power still pursues the kin of the child. Now,
the anger belongs to God; and His fury is about to “come up
in His face” resulting in blood up to the horses’ bridles
for many miles and the armies representing this power will
fight in total confusion & friendly fire.
Don’t you have to stop and pause at a few things: Shouldn’t the NY legislature be the ones to make this a crime? We are tired of rogue prosecutors coming up with theories of liability, whether it involves using Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute under-sized fish (Yates decision) or using Chemical Weapons laws to go after a jilted lover (Bond). I don’t want courts making up laws, and I don’t want prosecutors creating laws through enforcement strategies.
I have already been corrected. See post #27.
Thank you.
Here we go again w/ courts/judges reading into that which is not there: deeming the Law didn’t INTEND one way or another.
B.S. What does the Law SAY. Words have meaning and they should have meant EXACTLY what the Law said
Course, now, the lawyers are all in a tizzy for all the $$ coming their way from clients convicted on the basis that the child (in-utero) is a person and had possibly years added to their sentence.
OK then
When will it be a person? At 5? Or at 18? Or if it a conservative, never?
Yeah, after I posted this I was like...”It should’ve been hanged.”
Oh well, I think you knew what I meant.
’Carly Fiorina Was Right’: Group Releases Full Abortion Video Mentioned in GOP Debate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3344264/posts
**WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT**
{See the link above which includes actual photos and videos}
...
The graphic video of a “fully formed fetus… its legs kicking” appears in episode 3 of a multi-part documentary produced by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). This video shows former tissue procurement specialist Holly O’Donnell describing how she was shown an intact fetus with a beating heart. O’Donnell says of this moment, “I don’t know if that constitutes it’s technically dead, or it’s alive.” O’Donnell was then asked to harvest brain tissue from the same fetus by cutting through its face.
As O’Donnell narrates her gruesome experience, the video shifts to 10 seconds of a fetus in a metal bowl which is still moving. The video is clearly labeled as coming from the Grantham Collection & Center for Bioethical Reform. It is not video of the fetus O’Donnell is describing but was inserted by the producers to illustrate what a living fetus at this gestation would look like.
Whether the decision is right or wrong on it's actual issue, the issue isn't about the status of a six day old child.
Every member of the hung jury was hanged.
They may or may not be, but they certainly should be hanged.
_______________________________________
LOL! Okay, I really opened myself up for ridicule on this one! :-D
Whether they are hung or not is a matter of speculation. But they should all be hanged.
_______________________________________
LOL! Where’s the “Reset Button” when you need it? ;-)
“. . .and I would vote to convict. “
Even if she was on her way to have an abortion?
Just askin’. . . .
The murder lobby wants it legal to murder children up to six years old.
Despite the best efforts of hospital personnel, the baby died six days later.
An autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was due to injuries sustained in the accident.... Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding
....a six-day-old child is not a person
You get it. It should have been three counts, not just one.
I believe she was charged with those deaths as well and Aqquited by a jury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.