phatmonky
Mar9-04, 05:03 PM
Double murder: Court must decide if unborn a child or fetus
January 08, 2004 — 2:07 a.m.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — When is the murder of a pregnant woman the murder of her fetus?
That was the philosophical argument the California Supreme Court debated Wednesday. A lower court, for the first time, said a murderer must know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the unborn.
California's fetal-murder law was first passed by the Legislature in 1970. The law is being used to prosecute Scott Peterson for double murder in connection with the deaths of his wife, Laci, and her 8-month-old unborn child.
The Legislature adopted the fetal-murder law, which excludes abortions, after the California Supreme Court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of a Stockton man who, while beating his estranged wife, killed her unborn child. At the time, the court dismissed the conviction because California's murder law did not recognize a fetus.
Now that California's murder law recognizes fetuses, the issue before the justices was whether that law should treat the unborn the same as it does the born.
The case reached the high court after a state appeals court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of Harold Taylor, a Vietnam veteran found guilty of murdering his former Mendocino County lover who investigators said was at least 10 weeks pregnant.
On appeal, Taylor claimed he didn't know victim Patty Fansler was pregnant, and he successfully argued that he could not be prosecuted for murdering her fetus, which died when Taylor, in a fit of rage, shot and killed the woman in her Ukiah apartment in 1999.
In overturning the fetal-murder conviction, the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in 2002 that murder in California requires "malice aforethought" — a willful intent to take the life of another — and a "conscious disregard" for life.
The court, in making a highly nuanced and esoteric distinction between the born and unborn, ruled that it's not a conscious disregard for life if a fetus — unbeknownst to the killer — dies when its mother is murdered.
"As contrasted to the risk to human life, the risk to unknown fetal life is latent and indeterminate, something the average person would not be aware of or consciously disregard," the appeals court ruled.
During nearly an hour of arguments among the justices and lawyers Wednesday, a majority appeared satisfied that prior knowledge of pregnancy was not necessary to sustain a fetal-murder conviction. Still, Justice Joyce Kennard said, "I find it a very difficult issue."
California's law in question, with various versions in 29 states, exempts abortion and applies to all fetuses beyond eight weeks gestation. Many other states cover fetuses that are viable — ones that can live outside the womb. Congress is considering adopting a fetal-homicide rule.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and other justices wondered aloud that it might not be practical to demand knowledge of pregnancy. Sometimes, the justices said, it might be too hard to know whether a woman is pregnant.
What if the pregnant woman is a cross-dresser, George asked. Justice Marvin Baxter suggested a woman's obesity might mask her pregnancy.
Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, in urging the court to reinstate Taylor's fetal-murder conviction, told the justices it doesn't matter whether a murderer knew a woman was pregnant.
"It should make no difference," he asserted.
Under California's Penal Code, he said, a person can be convicted of more than one count of murder if he shot somebody in an apartment and the bullet traveled through the wall and killed a neighbor he didn't know was home. In addition, he said, a drunken driver who crashes into a car can be convicted of killing all the passengers under a rule known as the "unknown victim scenario."
It would be ridiculous, he suggested, if one of those passengers was a fetus and the law did not protect it solely because the drunken driver did not know a passenger was pregnant.
Taylor's attorney, Joseph Shipp, told the justices to uphold the appellate court's decision. "Fetal life is different," he said.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar didn't agree.
"What policy reasons would there be to draw these fine lines of distinction?" she asked. Justice Janice Rogers Brown was not persuaded by Shipp's argument, either. "What's the difference?" she demanded.
Taylor got a sentence of 65 years to life. The appeals court decision knocked it down to 40 years to life.
The court must rule within 90 days.
Thursday, January 8, 2004
So, are we really looking to "protect abortion" so much that we will allow people's babies to be killed with no consequence (or even just an assault charge)??
January 08, 2004 — 2:07 a.m.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — When is the murder of a pregnant woman the murder of her fetus?
That was the philosophical argument the California Supreme Court debated Wednesday. A lower court, for the first time, said a murderer must know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the unborn.
California's fetal-murder law was first passed by the Legislature in 1970. The law is being used to prosecute Scott Peterson for double murder in connection with the deaths of his wife, Laci, and her 8-month-old unborn child.
The Legislature adopted the fetal-murder law, which excludes abortions, after the California Supreme Court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of a Stockton man who, while beating his estranged wife, killed her unborn child. At the time, the court dismissed the conviction because California's murder law did not recognize a fetus.
Now that California's murder law recognizes fetuses, the issue before the justices was whether that law should treat the unborn the same as it does the born.
The case reached the high court after a state appeals court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of Harold Taylor, a Vietnam veteran found guilty of murdering his former Mendocino County lover who investigators said was at least 10 weeks pregnant.
On appeal, Taylor claimed he didn't know victim Patty Fansler was pregnant, and he successfully argued that he could not be prosecuted for murdering her fetus, which died when Taylor, in a fit of rage, shot and killed the woman in her Ukiah apartment in 1999.
In overturning the fetal-murder conviction, the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in 2002 that murder in California requires "malice aforethought" — a willful intent to take the life of another — and a "conscious disregard" for life.
The court, in making a highly nuanced and esoteric distinction between the born and unborn, ruled that it's not a conscious disregard for life if a fetus — unbeknownst to the killer — dies when its mother is murdered.
"As contrasted to the risk to human life, the risk to unknown fetal life is latent and indeterminate, something the average person would not be aware of or consciously disregard," the appeals court ruled.
During nearly an hour of arguments among the justices and lawyers Wednesday, a majority appeared satisfied that prior knowledge of pregnancy was not necessary to sustain a fetal-murder conviction. Still, Justice Joyce Kennard said, "I find it a very difficult issue."
California's law in question, with various versions in 29 states, exempts abortion and applies to all fetuses beyond eight weeks gestation. Many other states cover fetuses that are viable — ones that can live outside the womb. Congress is considering adopting a fetal-homicide rule.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and other justices wondered aloud that it might not be practical to demand knowledge of pregnancy. Sometimes, the justices said, it might be too hard to know whether a woman is pregnant.
What if the pregnant woman is a cross-dresser, George asked. Justice Marvin Baxter suggested a woman's obesity might mask her pregnancy.
Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, in urging the court to reinstate Taylor's fetal-murder conviction, told the justices it doesn't matter whether a murderer knew a woman was pregnant.
"It should make no difference," he asserted.
Under California's Penal Code, he said, a person can be convicted of more than one count of murder if he shot somebody in an apartment and the bullet traveled through the wall and killed a neighbor he didn't know was home. In addition, he said, a drunken driver who crashes into a car can be convicted of killing all the passengers under a rule known as the "unknown victim scenario."
It would be ridiculous, he suggested, if one of those passengers was a fetus and the law did not protect it solely because the drunken driver did not know a passenger was pregnant.
Taylor's attorney, Joseph Shipp, told the justices to uphold the appellate court's decision. "Fetal life is different," he said.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar didn't agree.
"What policy reasons would there be to draw these fine lines of distinction?" she asked. Justice Janice Rogers Brown was not persuaded by Shipp's argument, either. "What's the difference?" she demanded.
Taylor got a sentence of 65 years to life. The appeals court decision knocked it down to 40 years to life.
The court must rule within 90 days.
Thursday, January 8, 2004
So, are we really looking to "protect abortion" so much that we will allow people's babies to be killed with no consequence (or even just an assault charge)??