The manslaughter rules in california, and other parts of the United States, are very confusing and even contradictory. Consider involuntary intoxication...I am currently handling an appeal for a woman convicted of murder who was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer and taking numerous drugs to help her deal with the side effects, including ambien and prednisone. As a result of the treatment, her mental functioning was extremely impaired, to the point where she ended up killing her husband, shooting one of her sons, and trying to kill herself. Mental health doctors testified she was having a psychotic episode to the point where she did not know what she was doing, as a result of the drugs. The judge refused to give any manslaughter instruction, or an instruction that if the jury found she was psychologically unconscious she would not be guilty of murder.
If she had been acting in self-defense, or provoked, the court could have given a voluntary manslaughter instruction. Since she did not have such defenses, the court ruled that she could not have any manslaughter instruction, even though there was strong evidence she was not acting with malice. And the rule would seem to be that since malice is required to support a murder conviction, whether first degree or second degree, then if malice is negated by her psychological condition the jury should have been instructed on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. However, because she was involuntarily intoxicated, given that she was taking medications for a health problem that she did not know would cause psychotic episodes, the court should have instructed on involuntary manslaughter, or even unconsciousness. Under such circumstances it is most likely that a jury would have at worst found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter, or even not guilty because she was not conscious.
This entire problem was addressed in a recent movie by Steve Soderberg called "Side Effects" where the protagonist in the movie was in fact found not guilty under circumstances similar to what i have described above. The twist in the movie was that the protagonist was faking, and thus she got away with murder. In the case I am appealing, my client was not properly defended by her trial counsel and she was erroneously convicted of murder. Unfortunately life does not always imitate art, although i expect her conviction to be reversed upon completion of the appeal.
If you are in trouble with the law, contact criminal attorney Alan Fenster immediately! Call our Beverly Hills office at (310) 273-3661 to schedule a free initial consultation.
www.alanfensterlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment