Introduction:-
The letter of the law is always subject to interpretation whenever applied. There are various varying principles and rules of interpretation and sometimes the premises of a suit can be based, not on what a statute says, but on how the particular statute or a part thereof ought to be interpreted. This instant case creates a scenario where the rule of interpretation used is literally a matter of life and death for the Defendant who might face a capital offence under one rule of interpretation or a serious but non-capital offence under the other.
Facts of the Case :-
The Defendant is recently divorced and the now dissolved union had been blessed with two issues (the issues) whose custody was granted to the Defendant in the matrimonial cause which had been concluded prior to the material cause of the State Court case creating the cause of action in the instant suit. However, the matrimonial cause also granted the Defendant’s ex-wife (the Ex-wife) access to the aforesaid infants; this access is material since it was one of the factors in the confrontation material to this suit. The ex-wife also happened to be pregnant by the man she was now residing with. On the material date, the Ex-wife had come from dropping the issues, as she was driving away, when she met the Defendant in a narrow mountain pass as they drove from opposite directions. The Defendant looked calm according to the Ex-wife and he alighted from his car and approached the Ex-wife’s car.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After a brief chat through the car window, the Defendant helped the Ex-wife out of her car after mentioning the he heard about her pregnancy; he got agitated when he noticed that the said pregnancy was showing, pushed the Ex-wife against the side of her car and slammed his knee bone into her belly, even as he pummeled her face with his fist. As a direct consequence of this assault, the Ex-wife delivered a still born child with a fractured skull. According to expert witness evidence, the death of the unborn child was a direct consequence of the acts of the Defendant.
History of the Case:-
The Defendant was subsequently charged inter alia with the murder of the aforesaid unborn child in the State Court and indicted. He moved the Supreme Court of California to quash the conviction on the grounds that the Murder charges were premised on the misinterpretation of the Penal Code Section 187 (a) by interpreting the words human being to also include an unborn fetus. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction, feeling aggrieved, the People of California field an Application to the Supreme Court of California for a prohibition against the quashing of the indictment.
Issue before the Court :-
Albeit the Defendant was facing multiple charges before the Superior Court, the instant suit limited itself to the Murder charges and in particular the legality an interpretation that includes an unborn fetus in the words “Hunan Being” as used in the Penal code in general and section 187(a) in particular.
Ruling of the Court :-
The Supreme Court of California declined to issue the prohibition and ruled that it was unlawful for the words “Human Being” as written in the Penal Code in general and as appearing in section 187 (a) thereof to be interpreted to include an unborn fetus. Among the grounds informing the majority decision was that the Criminal Law in the state of California did not allow for the use of Common Law provisions as the basis of any Charges and as the interpretation sought by the People was based on the Common Law principle of equity, it was therefore un-applicable in a criminal case albeit applicable in a civil r tort case with similar facts. Further, the Court found that the way section 187 (a) had always been interpreted could not have provided warning to the Defendant that an interpretation of the words Human Being to include an infant could ever be used to charge him for murder therefore the murder charges would be unfair to the Defendant.
Conclusion: -
I find this particular ruling to be sound despite its unfairness to the people. The acts of the Defendant were cruel, inhuman and barbaric more so since they targeted an innocent soul, however courts must be impervious to feelings and consider the law above all other considerations. Further, having been issued in 1970 well before advent of the controversial abortion debate is vindicated by subsequent Supreme Court Rulings and Legislation regarding abortion which has now settled the issue by clearly stating that the words Human Being in any statute cannot be interpreted to mean an unborn infant.
References :-
Keeler v. Superior Court, 470 P.2d 617, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 87 Cal. Rptr. 481 (1970).
