Case Title: Hermanson v. State

Citation: 604 So. 2d 775

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
604 So. 2d 775 (1992)
William HERMANSON and Christine Hermanson, Petitioners,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 77067.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 2, 1992.
Thomas H. Dart of Dart, Ford, Strelec & Spivey, Sarasota, and Larry Klein and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Peggy A. Quince and Carol M. Dittmar, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
William G. Christopher of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for First Church of Christ, Scientist.
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Hermanson v. State, 570 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Id. at 337. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In this tragic case, Amy Hermanson, the daughter of William and Christine Hermanson, died from untreated juvenile diabetes. The Hermansons, members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, were charged and convicted of child abuse resulting in third-degree murder for failing to provide Amy with conventional medical treatment. The Hermansons received four-year suspended prison sentences on their murder convictions and were ordered to serve fifteen years' probation. The district court, finding that the spiritual treatment accommodation provision of section 415.503(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), did not prevent *776 their prosecution and conviction, affirmed the trial court's sentence and certified the above question. In summary, we find that sections 827.04(1) and 415.503(7)(f), when considered together, are ambiguous and result in a denial of due process because the statutes in question fail to give parents notice of the point at which their reliance on spiritual treatment loses statutory approval and becomes culpably negligent. We further find that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot be expected to understand the extent to which reliance on spiritual healing is permitted and the point at which this reliance constitutes a criminal offense under the subject statutes. The statutes have created a trap that the legislature should address. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court.
The statutory provisions are critical to the legal and constitutional issues presented in this case. Florida's child abuse statute, section 827.04(1)-(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides:
The third-degree murder provision of section 782.04(4), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that the killing of a human being while engaged in the commission of child abuse constitutes murder in the third degree and is a felony of the second degree. Section 415.503 provides, in part, as follows:
(Emphasis added.)[1]
The religious accommodation provision in section 415.503(7)(f) was initially passed by *777 the legislature in 1975 as section 827.07(2), Florida Statutes (1975), the same chapter that contained the child abuse provision under which the Hermansons were prosecuted. The senate staff analysis of the religious accommodation provision stated that these provisions were "a defense for parents who decline medical treatment for legitimate religious reasons." Staff of Fla. S. Comm. Crim. Just., SB 1186 (1975) Staff Analysis 1 (final May 26, 1975) (available at Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Archives, Tallahassee, Fla.). In 1983, the Division of Statutory Revision moved the above religious accommodation provision from chapter 827 to chapter 415.
The facts of this case, as stipulated to by the parties in the trial court, are as follows:
Hermanson, 570 So. 2d  at 325-27.
The district court summarized the facts presented at trial as follows:
Id. at 336-37.
The evidence and the stipulated facts established that the Hermansons treated Amy in accordance with their Christian Science beliefs. On the day of Amy's death, a Christian Science nurse had been summoned to the home to care for her. The nurse testified that Amy was unresponsive and that, when she began vomiting and her condition worsened, she recommended that an ambulance should be called. The Christian Science practitioner who was present advised the nurse that the church headquarters in Boston should be contacted before an ambulance was called. After placing a call to Boston, an ambulance was summoned.
In its argument to the jury, the State asserted that the Hermansons' reliance on Christian Science healing practices under these circumstances constituted culpable negligence. The basis of its argument was that the Hermansons were not legitimately practicing their religious beliefs. Drawing *780 on the evidence that the Christian Science nurse had called an ambulance when Amy began vomiting, the State suggested that the Christian Science Church recognizes conventional medical care and, therefore, the Hermansons had not been legitimately practicing their religious beliefs when they failed to seek medical care before Amy's death. No specific evidence was introduced by either side on the question of when, if at all, the Christian Science faith allows its members to call for medical attention. The Hermansons, on the other hand, argued to the jury that they should not be convicted of a criminal offense because they were "legitimately" practicing their faith in accordance with the accommodation provision of section 415.503(7)(f).
The jury, after one and one-half hours of deliberation, sought the answer to three questions: "(1) As a Christian Scientist do they have a choice to go to a medical doctor if they want to? (2) Or if not, can they call a doctor at a certain point? (3) Do they need permission first?" In response, the court advised the jurors that they must look to the evidence presented during the trial to find the answers. Counsel for both parties had previously agreed to this response by the trial court. The jury found the Hermansons guilty of felony child abuse and third-degree murder, and they were sentenced to four-year suspended prison sentences, with fifteen years' probation, on condition that they provide regular medical examinations and treatment for their surviving children.
On appeal, the district court affirmed, finding that the statutory accommodation section in 415.503(7)(f) applied only to matters contained in chapter 415 and that that provision did not provide any protection from criminal penalties for actual child abuse or neglect in chapters 782 and 827, Florida Statutes (1985). The district court rejected the Hermansons' claim that the evidence did not establish that they had acted willfully or with culpable negligence under the circumstances of this case. The district court agreed with the trial court that, when they returned from Indiana thirty-six hours before Amy's death and had seen that her condition had worsened, the Hermansons were placed on notice "that their attempts at spiritual treatment were unavailing and [that] it was time to call in medical help." Hermanson, 570 So. 2d  at 332. The district court concluded that those facts justified the issue's being submitted to the jury and the verdict finding the Hermansons guilty of culpable negligence. The district court also rejected the Hermansons' claim of a due process violation for lack of notice of when their conduct became criminal. In rejecting this contention, the district court relied on the decision of the California Supreme Court in Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. 3d 112, 253 Cal. Rptr. 1, 21, 763 P.2d 852, 872 (1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 905, 109 S. Ct. 3186, 105 L. Ed. 2d 695 (1989), in which that court stated:
Hermanson, 570 So. 2d  at 332.
In this appeal, the Hermansons challenge the district court decision on the following four issues: (1) that the Florida Statutes under which they were convicted did not give them fair warning of the consequences of practicing their religious belief and their conviction was, therefore, a denial of due process; (2) that the Hermansons were entitled to a judgment of acquittal because the evidence presented at trial *781 failed to establish culpable negligence beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) that permitting a jury to decide the reasonableness of the Hermansons in following their religious beliefs was a violation of the First Amendment freedom of religion; and (4) that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial when the prosecutor stated in closing argument that Christian Science recognizes conventional medical treatment, which was not supported by any evidence in the record. We choose to discuss only the first issue because we find that it is dispositive.
In asserting that they were denied due process, the Hermansons claim that the statutes failed to give them sufficient notice of when their treatment of their child in accordance with their religious beliefs became criminal. They argue that their position is supported by (1) the fact that it took the district court of appeal nine pages to explain how it arrived at its conclusion that the exemption for spiritual treatment was only part of the civil child abuse statute, not the criminal child abuse statute and (2) the trial court's construing the statute differently, holding that they were protected by the provision of section 415.503(7)(f) to the extent of making it a jury issue.
The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174, 73 S. Ct. 189, 97 L. Ed. 200 (1952), stated that confusion in lower courts is evidence of vagueness which violates due process. Furthermore, in Linville v. State, 359 So. 2d 450, 453-54 (Fla. 1978), we held that due process is lacking where "a man of common intelligence cannot be expected to discern what activity the statute is seeking to proscribe." In State v. McKown, 461 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990), aff'd, 475 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 882, 116 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1992), a child's parents utilized a Christian Science practitioner and a Christian Science nurse, but did not seek conventional medical treatment. The McKowns were indicted for second-degree manslaughter when their child died of untreated diabetes. The issue in that case was whether the child abuse statute, which contained an exception for spiritual treatment similar to the Florida statute, was to be construed in conjunction with a manslaughter statute that was based on culpable negligence resulting in death. In finding a violation of due process, the Minnesota court concluded that there was a "lack of clarity in the relationship between the two statutes." Id. at 723.
Id. at 724. The court further stated:
Id. at 724-25.
The State, in this instance, relies primarily on the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Walker. In Walker, a child died from untreated meningitis as a result of her mother's reliance on spiritual means in treating the child's illness. The mother, charged with manslaughter and felony child endangerment, argued that a religious accommodation provision found in a California misdemeanor child neglect statute, similar to chapter 415, barred her prosecution *782 under the California manslaughter statute. The mother argued that "the statutory scheme violate[d] her right to fair notice by allowing punishment under sections 192(b) and 273(a)(1) for the same conduct that is assertedly accommodated under section 270." Walker, 253 Cal. Rptr.  at 21, 763 P.2d  at 872. In rejecting this claim, the California Supreme Court explained that the statutes were clearly distinguishable and, in light of their differing objectives, the statutes could not be said to constitute inexplicably contradictory commands with respect to their respective requirements. Id. at 22, 763 P.2d  at 873.
In addressing the lack of notice claim, the State relies on the previously quoted statements in the Walker decision, particularly the conclusion that "persons relying on prayer treatment must estimate rightly" to avoid criminal prosecution because "due process requires no more." Walker, 253 Cal. Rptr.  at 20-21, 763 P.2d  at 871-72. Pennsylvania and Indiana have taken a similar view and rejected similar due process arguments. See Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 345 Pa.Super. 10, 497 A.2d 616 (1985), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S. Ct. 55, 102 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1988); Hall v. State, 493 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 1986). The State asserts that we should also reject the Minnesota court's reasoning in McKown in part because the spiritual treatment exception in that case was contained in a criminal child abuse statute, while the provision in the Florida statute is contained in the child dependency statute.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that one of the purposes of due process is "to insure that no individual is convicted unless `a fair warning [has first been] given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.'" Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S. Ct. 1652, 1663, 36 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1973) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S. Ct. 340, 341, 75 L. Ed. 816 (1931)). In Linville, this Court explained that a person of common intelligence must be able to determine what type of activity the statute is seeking to proscribe.
We disagree with the view of the Supreme Court of California in Walker that, in considering the application of this type of religious accommodation statute, persons relying on the statute and its allowance for prayer as treatment are granted only the opportunity to guess rightly with regard to their utilization of spiritual treatment. In commenting on this type of situation, one author has stated: "By authorizing conduct in one statute, but declaring that same conduct criminal under another statute, the State trapped the Hermansons, who had no fair warning that the State would consider their conduct criminal." Christine A. Clark, Religious Accommodation and Criminal Liability, 17 Fla.St. U.L.Rev. 559, 585 (1990) (footnotes omitted). We agree.
To say that the statutes in question establish a line of demarcation at which a person of common intelligence would know his or her conduct is or is not criminal ignores the fact that, not only did the judges of both the circuit court and the district court of appeal have difficulty understanding the interrelationship of the statutes in question, but, as indicated by their questions, the jurors also had problems understanding what was required.
In this instance, we conclude that the legislature has failed to clearly indicate the point at which a parent's reliance on his or her religious beliefs in the treatment of his or her children becomes criminal conduct.[2] If the legislature desires to provide for religious accommodation while protecting the children of the state, the legislature must clearly indicate when a parent's conduct becomes criminal. As stated by another commentator: "Whatever choices are made ... both the policy and the letter of the law should be clear and clearly stated, so that those who believe in healing by prayer rather than medical treatment are *783 aware of the potential liabilities they may incur." Catherine W. Laughran, Comment, Religious Beliefs and the Criminal Justice System: Some Problems of the Faith Healer, 8 Loy.L.A.L.Rev. 396, 431 (1975).
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed, we quash the decision of the district court of appeal and remand this case with directions that the trial court's adjudication of guilt and sentence be vacated and the petitioners discharged.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[1]  The following are some of the jurisdictions that have enacted legislation recognizing spiritual healing. Alabama: Ala. Code § 13A-13-6(b) (1982), id. § 26-14-1(2) (1990); Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 47.17.020(d) (Supp. 1988); Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-531.01 (1989); Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-502(3) (Michie 1987); California: Cal. Penal Code § 270 (West 1988), id. § 11165.2(b) (West Supp. 1989); Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 16509.1 (West Supp. 1991), id. § 18950.5 (West 1991); Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-6-101 (1989), id. § 19-3-103 (Supp. 1990); Delaware: Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 907 (1983), id. tit. 11, § 1104 (1987); District of Columbia: D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1356 (1988); Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 350-4 (1985); Idaho: Idaho Code § 16-1602(s)(1) (Supp. 1992), id. § 16-1616(c) (1979), id. §§ 18-401(2), -1501(3) (1987); Iowa: Iowa Code §§ 232.68(2)(c), 726.6(1)(d) (1991); Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3608(1)(c) (1988); Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 557 (West 1983), id. tit. 22, § 4010 (West Supp. 1992); Maryland: Md.Fam.Law Code Ann. § 5-701(n)(2) (Supp. 1991); Md. Health Occ.Code Ann. §§ 7-102(a), 14-102(2) (1991); Missouri: Mo. Ann. Stat. § 210.115.3 (Vernon Supp. 1992), id. § 568.040.2(4) (Vernon 1979), id. § 568.050.2 (Vernon Supp. 1992); Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 200.5085, 432B.020(2) (Michie 1991); New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:3 XIX(c) (1990), id. § 170-C.5 II (1990), id. § 639.3 IV (1991); North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 50-25.1-05.1(2) (1989); Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-11-15 (1990); South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-16 (Supp. 1991), id. § 25-7-17.1 (1984), id. § 26-8A-23 (Supp. 1991); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-6-102(1) (1987), id. § 37-1-157(c) (1991); Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-19.5 (1992); Vermont: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 4913(C) (1991); Virginia: Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-314, -371.1 (Michie 1988), id. § 63.1-248.2A2 (Michie 1991); Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-202(vii) (1991), id. § 35-1-201 (1988).
[2]  We distinguish this case from Nicholson v. State, 600 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1992). The circumstances in this case are entirely different.