Opinion ID: 1204855
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Provide Medical Care.

Text: Pursuing the theory just mentioned further, the state contends that not alone was it an unlawful act to fail to provide medical (or perhaps other) care for the infant born, but that it was also criminal negligence within the meaning of section 9-205, supra. No case to sustain that contention is cited. In the case of Regina v. Knights, 2 F. & F. 46, 175 English Reports (Full Reprint) 952, it was contended by the prosecutor Mills that if the jury thought the defendant knew she was about to be delivered, and that she wilfully abstained from taking necessary precautions to preserve the life of the child after its birth, and the child died in consequence of that criminal neglect, then the prisoner would be guilty of manslaughter. Chief Justice Cockburn remarked: Have you any authority for that proposition? I never heard such a doctrine laid down before. The case as reported proceeds as follows: The Lord Chief Justice said, that he had consulted Williams, J., and that they were both of opinion that the prisoner could not, on this evidence, be guilty of manslaughter, according to the view propounded by the counsel for the prosecution. In the case of Rex v. Izod, (1904), 20 Cox's Criminal Law Cases 690, the syllabus of the case is as follows: To warrant the conviction of a woman for manslaughter of her new-born child, whose death was caused by want or proper care at birth, it is not enough to show that such woman was guilty of criminal negligence by purposely arranging to be unattended at her confinement. She must also be proved to have been further guilty of negligence towards the child after it was completely born. In 1 Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 8th Ed., 635, the author states as follows: The mere failure on the part of a woman to make proper provision for her expected confinement, resulting in the complete birth and subsequent death of a child, is not sufficient in itself to warrant a conviction of manslaughter. Where on an indictment of a woman for the murder of her infant it appeared that the infant was found dead in a bag and that the mother had not made any preparation for its birth, she was held not guilty of manslaughter, although she knew she was about to be delivered, and wilfully abstained from taking the necessary precautions to preserve the life of the child after its birth, and the child died in consequence of that neglect. Quite a number of cases have been decided in this country on the killing of a new born child by an unmarried mother who was unattended at childbirth. And while the fact that no medical care has been provided might be a circumstance, along with others, that there existed an intention to kill (See State v. Stringer, 357 Mo. 978, 211 S.W. (2nd) 925), no case decided in this country has been found going to the length of the contention of the state. On the contrary in view of the numerous reversals of conviction in similar cases and the theory on which they are based would seem to suggest that the contention of the state would not be upheld. Children are born of unattended mothers on trains, in taxis, and in other out of the way places, and we fear to open up a field for unjust prosecutions of actually innocent women. We are not prepared at this time, at least, to lay down a rule contrary to the English authorities above cited. We might incidentally say in that connection: Supposing that the State's contentions were correct, how would we be able to say that the defendant was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of the testimony that many infants born with pneumonia die and that with the degree of pneumonia with which the infant in question here was born, it might have survived with proper care? Does not such testimony engender considerable doubt as to what actually happened?