Court Opinion

ID: 9743636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:39:08.982807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:50.615311
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LINDBERG, dissenting: My admiration for the majority’s exposition of the common law applicable to this case is exceeded only by my astonishment at their refusal to apply it. In affirming the conviction in this case, the majority acquiesces in the trial court’s express application of a standard derived from a totally irrelevant public health statute. Illinois law dictates the application of the principles of the common law in this case. The use of those principles is consistent with the policies underlying the Criminal Code of 1961 as well as the analytical approach to this question taken in People v. Greer (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 103, 402 N.E.2d 203. The commentators to the Criminal Code of 1961 noted that: “[T]he supersession of all common-law definitions of particular offenses does not mean that the large mass of interpretive rules developed under the common law is superseded: these rules are a highly valuable part of our criminal law, and their effective replacement by statutory law would be exceedingly difficult.” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 1 — 3, Committee Comments, at 13 (Smith-Hurd 1972). Likewise, in People v. Greer, our supreme court ultimately relied upon common law principles to determine whether an unborn fetus could be an “individual” for the purposes of a homicide prosecution, thus rejecting the State’s invitation to “create a new offense” by judicial fiat. Although as the majority comments, the facts in Greer are distinguishable, the reasoning of the. supreme court in applying the common law is sound and persuasive in this case. I would adhere to the common law definition of live birth as it pertains to the offense of reckless homicide. Under that definition, the proof offered by the State of a few transitory heartbeats is insufficient to establish live birth and thus, is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The great weight of the common law requires that in order to establish a live birth for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, it must be shown that the newborn be completely delivered and have established an existence which is separate and independent from that of the mother. Generally, it has been held that such an independent existence is shown beyond a reasonable doubt where an infant survives long enough to take a breath. People v. Greer (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 103, 402 N.E.2d 203; Morgan v. State (1923), 148 Tenn. 417, 256 S.W. 433. Far from conclusively establishing independent existence, the heartbeat exhibited by Misty Oswald is utterly consistent with the dependant existence of a fetus in the womb. It is well known that a fetus exhibits regular heart action in the very early stages of pregnancy. (Gray, Anatomy of the Human Body 28, 536 (29th Am. ed. 1973).) The heart action testified to by the medical experts in this case is readily ascribable to the residuum of the mother’s support. The heartbeat standing alone seems to provide no particular indicia of nonfetal life and nonfetal life is an indispensable element of the corpus delicti in this case. Conversely, breathing is an action completely inconsistent with and unnecessary for fetal life. “Although slight but regular instinctive movements of the thoracic walls, are stated to occur in the enwombed foetus, breathing as a function is quite novel. It is called for by the actual or functional detachment of the after-birth from the womb *** ‘Le besoin de respirer’ [the need to breathe] evokes the first breath of life.. Reflex or automatic attempts *** are initiated under this ‘stimulus of necessity.’ ” Atkinson, Life, Birth & Live-Birth, 20 L.Q. Rev. 134, 153 (1904). Testimony adduced at trial confirms that respiration is necessary to support an independent existence. The record also reveals that although oxygen was administered and resuscitation attempted, these measures were to no avail. No discernible inflation of the lungs was noted and muscle tone was lacking. The only evidence before the court indicated that, at birth, the infant exhibited a heart rate of 50, a rate well below that normally found in newborns. In the absence of any other indicia of independent existence I am constrained to conclude that these few heartbeats are insufficient evidence by which to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Misty Oswald was born alive. While apparently acknowledging the applicability of the common law to this case, the majority endorses the trial court’s express reliance on a completely different standard. This standard was derived from a civil provision, with no regard either for the purpose of that provision or for the context into which it was being interposed. The Vital Records Act is clearly a civil enactment. Nothing on the face of the statute indicates that it was intended for use as a criminal standard. No court in Hlinois has ever before suggested such an application. E.g., People ex rel Gage v. Siman (1917), 278 Ill. 256, 115 N.E. 817. The majority comments that a trial court acting as finder of fact may weigh the evidence before it and that unless the resulting judgment rests on doubtful, improbable, unsatisfactory, or clearly insufficient evidence, that judgment should be affirmed. The majority notes that the trial court’s finding in this case is consistent with the testimony presented by the medical experts. However, the opinions relied upon by the trial court centered for the most part on whether the infant had been born alive for purposes of certification under the Vital Records Act. In stressing the trial court’s ability to weigh the evidence, the majority seems to have overlooked the dual role occupied by a judge during a bench trial. In such a situation, the trial judge is the tribunal compelled to determine what the facts are and he is also the magistrate required to lay down correctly the guiding principle of law. See Palmer House Co. v. Otto (1952), 347 Ill. App. 198, 106 N.E.2d 753. Once the supreme court has declared the law on a subject, it alone can overrule or modify that rule. (Rusher v. Smith (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 889, 388 N.E.2d 906.) Our institutional function as an intermediate appellate court is to follow the decisions of our supreme court, and to decide such cases in conformity with logical extensions of those rulings. People v. O’Neal (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 448, 352 N.E.2d 282, cert. denied (1977), 431 U.S. 969, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1065, 97 S. Ct. 2929; Doxtater v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 547, 290 N.E.2d 284. In my opinion the supreme court has ruled that the common law standard should be determinative in cases of this type. The trial court erred in its application of the Vital Records Act to this case, and the decision of the majority compounds that error.