Deliberating on a Verdict

Unit 2 Assignment: Deliberating on a Verdict

By: Taria Davis

PA260: Criminal Law

Professor Colleen Grady

November 18, 2013

Deliberating on a Verdict

This case would be hard to judge. A drunk driver (Brent Birch) struck a pedestrian (Leah Russell) who later died of the injuries. Ms. Russell had a chance of surviving if she would have consented to a blood transfusion. Ms. Russell refused the transfusion based on religious beliefs.

Under California homicide laws Mr. Birch is guilty of vehicular homicide. This charge carries the punishment of 4 to 10 years under normal circumstances. Due to Mr. Birch having a previous DUI he can be given 15 years to life in prison if convicted.

Ms. Russell has the legal right to refuse life-saving treatments. People refuse treatment everyday in the form of DNR’s (do not resuscitate). Yes there is a chance that the blood transfusion might have saved Ms. Russell’s life, but there is also the chance that it would not have made a difference. In the end, she actually died due to injuries incurred when she was struck by Mr. Birch’s vehicle.

For Ms. Russell to be at fault in her own death, then so would millions of others that refuse life-saving measures. The law gives a person the constitutional right to make decisions about the medical treatments they receive. The medical measures taken would be different if Ms. Russell would not have been coherent at the time. But she, in fact, was coherent when she refused a blood transfusion when the doctor informed her that it could be the difference between life and death.

Mr. Birch should be charged with and found guilty of vehicular manslaughter. He has already received at least one DUI and chose to take a chance on receiving another. Mr. Birch also knew the chances that he was taking when he chose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. He unintentionally took the life of a young women that was just standing on the side of the road minding her own business. He...