Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Id, at 353, 332 S.E.2d at 808. The Court in Atkinson refused to expand the “bom alive” rule to cover criminal offenses, holding, “Neither our murder statute, W.Va. Code, 61-2-1, nor its attendant common law principles authorize prosecution of an individual for the killing of a viable unborn child.” Id., Syllabus Point 2. Since Atkinson was decided, the Legislature passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which provides that a “fetus” can be the victim of certain violent ding a mother was not criminally liable for knowingly causing injury to a child under circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury after the mother’s pre-birth ingestion of heroin caused her child to suffer heroin withdrawal symptoms postpartum); Collins v. State, 890 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Sheriff, Washoe Cnty. v. Encoe, 110 Nev. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a woman possessed immunity from criminal prosecution for causing injury or death to her fetus (B) holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child (C) holding for purposes of establishing the offense of reckless manslaughter against a pregnant woman a fetus is not a person (D) holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution (E) holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute
Output (English): holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child