Character of Action: Robert Harrison Keeler petition the Superior Court of Amador County for a review of the case on a “writ of prohibition’ (SCOCAL)
Facts: On September 27, 1968, the petitioner and his wife of 16 years received an interlocutory decree of divorce. This decree granted the petitioner custody of their two daughters, ages 12 and 13 years and allowed visitations with Mrs. Keeler on alternative weekends. At the time of the decree Mrs. Keeler was pregnant with Ernest Vogt’s child, but concealed the fact from Mr. Keeler. On February 23, 1969, the petitioner was driving on a road in Amador County when he encounters Mrs. Keeler. Mrs. Keeler was on her way back to Stockton after dropping off her daughters at their home. The petitioner …show more content…
NO
Decision (5-2)
The court reversed Robert Harris Keeler murder conviction, stating that the South Carolina Court decision restricted him from due process of the law because it imposed an “unforeseeable” (SCOCAL) crime statue in which a person is liable for a past crime without fair warning.
Majority Opinion (by Justice Mosk whom Justice McComb, Peters, Trobriner, and Peek joined):
A) Under the common law of abortion homicide, a fetus cannot be considered a human being unless it was born alive.
B) The state is required to answer a petitioner’s “question of fact” (SCOCAL) based on the statue’s true meaning and its language.
C) Based on the court’s jurisdiction and the limits the constitution imposes on the court. The court cannot find the defendant guilty of killing the fetus based on the penal code 187 definition “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” (SCOCAL).
D) The constitution grants the court the right to apply the law base on the clear boundaries of the statue. Therefore, the court cannot expand or diminished the true meaning of the language in the statue in order to fit a crime. Expanding the law in this case would constitute as cruel and unusual …show more content…
Superior Court is a case that determined that a fetus regardless whether it was in the first, second or third trimester would not be considered a human being. The American common law did not recognize a fetus as a human being because the medical field did not have the technology to determine that a child in the womb was in fact a live before its birth. This case set the motion for state legislators across The United States to begin incorporating fetal homicide laws. Currently the United States have 38 States that have expanded their definition of the common law (National Conference of State Legislators 2015). California’s legislature revised the original murder definition in Penal Code 187 to state, “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus, with malice aforethought” (Tozzini 2005 p. 96). The new revision even though it includes the protection of a fetus was set to exclude certain individuals from being punished. This exclusion included medical personnel who are licensed to perform legal abortions on the women with their legal consent. Furthermore, it also excluded medical personnel who need to perform lifesaving procedures that would end the pregnancy, but would save the woman’s life or whose pregnancy put the women at risk (Tozzin 2005 p. 96). The California’s legislature expanded the Penal Code 187 by establishing and determining that a fetus is a second life apart from its mother. It determined that the fetus movement in the womb showed that
Facts: On September 27, 1968, the petitioner and his wife of 16 years received an interlocutory decree of divorce. This decree granted the petitioner custody of their two daughters, ages 12 and 13 years and allowed visitations with Mrs. Keeler on alternative weekends. At the time of the decree Mrs. Keeler was pregnant with Ernest Vogt’s child, but concealed the fact from Mr. Keeler. On February 23, 1969, the petitioner was driving on a road in Amador County when he encounters Mrs. Keeler. Mrs. Keeler was on her way back to Stockton after dropping off her daughters at their home. The petitioner …show more content…
NO
Decision (5-2)
The court reversed Robert Harris Keeler murder conviction, stating that the South Carolina Court decision restricted him from due process of the law because it imposed an “unforeseeable” (SCOCAL) crime statue in which a person is liable for a past crime without fair warning.
Majority Opinion (by Justice Mosk whom Justice McComb, Peters, Trobriner, and Peek joined):
A) Under the common law of abortion homicide, a fetus cannot be considered a human being unless it was born alive.
B) The state is required to answer a petitioner’s “question of fact” (SCOCAL) based on the statue’s true meaning and its language.
C) Based on the court’s jurisdiction and the limits the constitution imposes on the court. The court cannot find the defendant guilty of killing the fetus based on the penal code 187 definition “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” (SCOCAL).
D) The constitution grants the court the right to apply the law base on the clear boundaries of the statue. Therefore, the court cannot expand or diminished the true meaning of the language in the statue in order to fit a crime. Expanding the law in this case would constitute as cruel and unusual …show more content…
Superior Court is a case that determined that a fetus regardless whether it was in the first, second or third trimester would not be considered a human being. The American common law did not recognize a fetus as a human being because the medical field did not have the technology to determine that a child in the womb was in fact a live before its birth. This case set the motion for state legislators across The United States to begin incorporating fetal homicide laws. Currently the United States have 38 States that have expanded their definition of the common law (National Conference of State Legislators 2015). California’s legislature revised the original murder definition in Penal Code 187 to state, “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus, with malice aforethought” (Tozzini 2005 p. 96). The new revision even though it includes the protection of a fetus was set to exclude certain individuals from being punished. This exclusion included medical personnel who are licensed to perform legal abortions on the women with their legal consent. Furthermore, it also excluded medical personnel who need to perform lifesaving procedures that would end the pregnancy, but would save the woman’s life or whose pregnancy put the women at risk (Tozzin 2005 p. 96). The California’s legislature expanded the Penal Code 187 by establishing and determining that a fetus is a second life apart from its mother. It determined that the fetus movement in the womb showed that